Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1 - 1 of 21
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Ib
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The Honorable Brian Gain
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR
HEALTHY GROWTH,
Petitioner,
PACLAND; JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E.;
BONNELL FAMILY, LLC; PETER
BONNELL; CITY OF RENTON,
NO. 10-2-31728-7 KNT
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON
NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY
GROWTH
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Renton recently approved a proposal by intervenor Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to
expand its existing Wal-Mart Discount Store into a Superstore despite that the proposal is an
illegal expansion of a non -conforming structure. The structure, as it stands, violates the City's
maximum frontage setback requirement of 15 feet. Wal-Mart proposed to expand that illegal
structure with no intention of bringing it into conformance with the Code. That is forbidden by
RMC 4-10-050A.
The City also erred when it approved the Wal-Mart expansion proposal because the
design of the Superstore violates the City's design regulations. The Code contains urban design
Sricklin & Newman, L.LP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 9ttome', aiLaw
1001 Fcuith At',Law
Suite 3303
GROWTH- 1Seattle NA 98154
Tel. X6) 264$600
Fax. (206) 2649300
I .regulations that set forth the standard for the design of the Wal-Mart proposal. The Hearing
2 Examiner's own decision reveals that the Wal-Mart proposal is inconsistent with at least 20
minimum standards in the design regulations, yet he approved the project nonetheless. The City
4
Council adopted that approval, apparently believing that adherence to the design regulations is
S
6 optional. To the contrary, those provisions are mandatory and the Wal-Mart proposal should
7 have been denied.
g Rather than require that Wal-Mart conform to the Code requirements, the Examiner
9 opined that "it might be nice" if Wal-Mart would comply with the current Code and expressed a
10 hope that the "next remodel" would be better. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision
11
at 18 (1 16) (hereinafter referred to as "Examiner Decision"). RNHG requests that this Court
12
reverse the City of Renton's approval of the Wal-Mart expansion proposal and issue an order
13
14 requiring that the proposal be denied.
16 IL STATEMENT OF ISSUES
16 A. Whether the City of Renton's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion should
17 be reversed because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal expansion of a non-conforming structure
18 per RMC 4-10-050A.
19
B. Whether the Hearing Examiner decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion
20
21 proposal should be reversed because it violates the City's design regulations applicable to District
22 D in RNIC 4-3-100.
23 TTI. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
24 A. The Wal-Mart Expansion Proposal
26 On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Pacland filed an application on February 8, 2010 for
26
Site Plan review of a proposal to expand and. convert the existing Wal-Mart Discount Store
Srickliu & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Atth A az Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, Svite 3303
GROWTH- 2 Scattle �'A 93154
TeL (_WO) 364-MW
Fa - (2Gj 264-9:00
1 located at 743 Rainier Avenue South in Renton into a Superstore. Land Use Permit Master
2 Application (Feb. 8, 2010). The project site is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the
3 Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations within Urban Design
4
District "D."
5
6 The existing Wal-Mart store was built approximately fifteen years ago. Initial Report of
7 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Nov. 30, 2009) at 3; Transcript of proceedings (Apr_ 27,
8 2010) at 18, line 5. Needless to say, the City of Renton's regulations have changed since the
9 original store was built. For example, the City adopted a maximum frontage setback requirement
10 of 15 feet for the site after the Wal-Mart was built. Ordinance 5437 (2008) (amending RMC 4-2-
11
120A). In addition, the City adopted new design regulations. Ordinance 5286 (2007). While the
12
existing Wal-Mart was presumably consistent with the City of Renton Code when it was
13
14 onginally built, today it is no longer consistent with the Code. It is, therefore, a "non -
15 conforming" structure.
16 The existing Wal-Mart contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional
17 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. Dept. of Community and Economic Development,
18 Preliminary Report to the Examiner (Apr. 27, 2010). The proposal for the new expanded
19 `
Superstore proposes to add 16,000 square feet to the retail space and reduce the Garden Center by
20
4,000 square feet. Id. The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail
21
22 building, 745 surface parking stalls, and a 4,701 square foot Garden Center. Id. Thus, Wal-Mart
23 proposes to expand its non -conforming structure.
24 B. The Citv's Review of the Proposal
25 Asmentioned above, Pacland submitted its application for Wal-Mart site plan review on
26
February 25, 2010. Following review by City staff and by the City of Renton's Environmental
Bcicklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Attorneys at Law
I061 Fourth Avenue, Suite.3303
GRO�hj'I'I I- 3 Smtde VIA 98154
Tei. (206) 2648600
Fa (206) 2649300
1 Review Committee, the Department of Community and Economic Development issued a
2 preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner on April 27, 2010. See Preliminary Report.
3 A public hearing was held before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on Tuesday, April
4
27, 2010. Examiner Decision at 1. During the hearing, the Hearing Examiner described the
5
6 proposal as a "sea of asphalt" and when Wal -Mart's attorney attempted a different
7
characterization, the Hearing Examiner responded "it's bard to not call a sea of asphalt, a sea of
g asphalt, frankly. There is a lot of asphalt out there." Transcript of Proceedings (Apr. 27, 2010) at
9 18, lines 22-23.
10 After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the Examiner issued a decision
11
approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan on May 13, 2010. See Examiner Decision. In his
12
decision, the Examiner acknowledged that the project was inconsistent with provisions in the
13
14 Renton Code, but approved it nonetheless. Examiner Decision at 16 (13), 18 (� 16). He stated
15 that "while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer Code provisions," the proposed
16 expansion was modest and enhances the existing building's appearance. Id at 18 (¶ 16). In his
17 decision, he stated "maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce
18 the sea of asphalt." Id.
19
Renton. Neighbors for Healthy Growth (RNHG) became aware of the project on or about
20
21 May 17, 2010. The group filed a request for reconsideration on May 27, 2010 with the Hearing
22 Examiner asking that the Examiner reconsider his decision on several ,grounds. See Letter from
23 Claudia M. Newman to Fred Kaufman dated May 27, 2010. The Examiner responded to that
24 request on June 10, 2010 indicating that he would not alter the original decision and that he was
25 denying RNHG's request for reconsideration. See Letter from Fred Kaufman to Claudia
26 Newman dated July 10, 2010.
Brickhn & Newman, IJ•p
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHS ORS FOR HEALTHY u"zh A°' u , Su
10Qt Faucch Avenue, Suire 1303
GROWTH- 4 Seatde WA 98154
TeL P6j 264-8600
Fac (206) 2649300
I RNHG appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council on May 27, 2010,
2 Notice of Appeal (May. 27, 2010). The Planning and Development Committee of the Renton City
Council held a brief hearing for oral argument on appeal. With little discussion on the matter, the
4
Planning and Development Committee recommended that the full City Council affirm the
5
decision of the Hearing Examiner. Planning and Development Committee Committee Report
6
7 (Aug. 16, 2010). The Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and
8 Development Committee affirming, the decision of the Hearing Examiner at a regular Council
9 meeting on August 16, 2010. Letter from Jason Seth to. Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth
10 (Aug. 17, 2010). RNHG filed this LUPA appeal shortly thereafter.
I1
1V. ARGUMENT
12
A. Standard of Review
1�
14 The Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), RCW 36.700.130, sets forth the standard of review
15 that this Court must apply in its review of the Renton City Council's decision to approve the Wal -
16 Mart expansion site plan proposal. Review is appellate review on the administrative record
17 created before the Hearing Examiner. HJS Dev. Inc. v. Pierce County ex rel. Dept. of Planning
18 and Land Services, 148 Wn.2d 451, 467, 61 P.3d 1141 (2003).
19
The City Council's decision must be reversed if
20
(a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged
21 in unlawful procedure or failed to follow prescribed process, unless
22 the error was harmless;
23 (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the
law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of
24 a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise;
25 (c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is
26 substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the
Court;.
$rickfin & Newmm, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTCN NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY1007 Pouith ALAvenue,
Law
veuu 03
e, Suite 33
GRO YY�I7 11 5 Sa tde WA 98154
Td. (206) X48600
Fa (206) 2649300
1
(d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of
2 the law to the facts; ...
RCW 36.70C.130(l).
4
When the Court is reviewing a question of law, the standard is de novo review. RCW
5
6 36.70C.130(1)(b). For example, the City Council's interpretation of RMC 4-10-050, or other
7 code provisions, being a question of law, would be reviewed under the de nova standard.
8 Milestone Homes, Inc. v. City of Bonney Lake, 145 Wn. App. 118, 126,186 P.3d 357 (2008).
9 When the Court is reviewing an application of facts to the law, the "clearly erroneous"
10 standard applies. RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c); Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston County, 131 Wn.
11
App. 756, 768, 129 P.3d 300 (2006). Even if some evidence supports the City's decision, a
12
decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm
13
14 conviction that a mistake has been committed. Norway Hill Preservation and Protection
15 Association v, King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). The "clearly
16 erroneous" standard allows the Court broader discretion than the often used "arbitrary and
17 capricious" standard. Id. Review under the "clearly erroneous' standard also requires the Court
18 to consider the public policy of the laws that authorize the decision. Thus, consideration of
19
public policy is part of the review.
20
21 Where the Court considers the credibility of findings of fact only, the standard of review
22 is "substantial evidence." RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c); Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund v, City
23 of Seattle, 113 Wn. App. 34, 61, 52 P.3d 522 (2002). "Substantial evidence" is a sufficient
24 quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the
25 determination of fact. Id.
?6
Brieldin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 10p] FAttomcys at Lam
purth Aveave, Sui.e 3303
GROWTH- 6 Scattle WA 98154
Td. (206) 264.8600
Fax. (206) 264-9370
1 B. The Wal-Mart Pxoposal is an Illegal Expansion of a Non -Conforming Structure
2 The City of Renton's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion should be reversed
3
because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal enlargement of an existing non -conforming structure
4
under RMC 4-10-050 as is explained below.
5
1. Non-conformingstructures may not be ex anded unless the are made
6 conforming
7
A '`non -conforming structure" is "a lawful structure that does not comply with the current
development standards (yard setbacks, lot size, lot coverage, height, etc.) for its zone, but which
9
10 complied with applicable regulations at the time it was established. RMC 4-11-112 (Definition
11 N) A legally established building or structure may remain if it does not conform with the
12 provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, but only if certain conditions are met, including the
13 following:
14 3. Alterations: A legal nonconforming structure shall not be
15 altered beyond the limitations specified below:
16 a, Structures With Rebuild Approval Permits:
Alteration work exceeding an aggregate cost of one Hundred
17 percent (100%) of the value of the building or structure
18 shall be allowed if:
19 (1) the building or structure is made conforming by the
alterations; or
20
(2) the alterations were imposed as a condition of
21 granting a rebuild approval permit; or
22 (3) alterations are necessary to restore to a safe
23 condition any portion of a building or structure declared
unsafe by a proper authority. Alterations shall not result in
24 or increase any non --conforming conditions unless they were
specifically imposed as a condition of granting a rebuild
25 approval permit, pursuant to RMC 4-9-120.
26
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTH1001 Fourth Att°meys�Lu
� 7 °urh Avenue, Sintt 3.103
GRO YY'M- 7 SemdeWA98154
Td. (206) 264-9600
Fes. (206) 264-9300
1 b.. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The cost
of the alterations shall not exceed an .aggregate cost of fifty
2 percent (50%) of the value of the building or structure,
based upon its most recent assessment or appraisal, unless
' the amount over fifty percent (50%) is used to make the
4 building or structure more confonning, or is used to restore
it to a safe condition any portion -of a building or structure
5 declared unsafe by a proper authority. Alterations shall not
result in or increase any nonconforming condition.
6
7 4. Enlargement: The structure shall not be enlarged. unless
the enlargement is conforming or it is consistent with the provisions
g of a rebuild approval permit issued for it.
9 RMC 4-10-050(A). This provision provides conditions for two different types of actions: the
10 "alteration" of a structure and the "enlargement" of a structure. The provision concerning
11
"enlargement" is the relevant provision in this case because Wal-Mart is enlarging its existing
12
structure. Therefore, RMC 4-10-050(A)(4) applies here. That provision forbids enlarging a non-
13
14 confarmiri , structure unless the enlargement is conforming or unless it is consistent with
15 conditions of a rebuild approval permit. Here, Wal-Mart did not have a rebuild approval permit
16 and, therefore, the proposal for enlargement must bring the structure into conformance with the
17 Code.
18 2. The existing Wal-Mart is a non-conforming structure
19
The existing Wal-Mart is a non-conforming structure under the Renton City Code. The
20
21 Wal-Mart site is designated Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) on the City of
22 Renton zoning map.' The CA zoning designation requires a maximum front yard setback of 15
23 feet. RMC 4-2-120A.
24
25 i
Because only a small portion of the site is Medium Industrial (IM), the staff decided to review the
26 project only under the Commercial Arterial (CA) requirements. RNHG does not necessarily agree with this
approach, but, for practical purposes, it did not ultimately affect the project.
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Aeys u rrOPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY pool rorrh Avernu� s�
4 3303
GROWTH- O
Se rde TC+A 98134
Tel. (2N 3644000
Fig. (206) 264-9300
I As it stands, there is an enormous parking lot between Hardy Avenue SWaainier Avenue
2 S. and the entrance to the Wal-Mart. See Wal-Mart Short Plat Map (Nov. 2, 2009). The front
3
street for the Wal-Mart is Hardy Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. ISR 1.67. There is far more
4
than 500 feet between the from street and the building. Therefore, the Wal-Mart is in violation of
5
the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. The Wal-Mart is also in violation of the City's
7 design regulations as is explained in more detail in Section C.
8 3. The proposed Wal-Mart expansion is an illegal enlargement of a non-
conforming structure
9
10 RMC 4-10-050(A)(4), the provision quoted above does not allow Wal-Mart to expand its
11 non -conforming structure as proposed. The provision above makes it clear that enlargements are
12 not allowed unless they make the structure conforming or unless it is consistent with a rebuilt
13 approval permit. Wal-Mart is not seeking, nor has it received, a rebuild approval permit.
14 Therefore, the proposal must bring the structure into conformance with the Code.
15
The proposal does not do that. The proposed Wal-Mart structure, after expansion, would
16
be setback from the front property line approximately 555 feet at the closest point, from the
17
18 garden center to Hardy Avenue SW. Examiner Decision at 6 (J'20). Therefore, the proposed
19 structure does not comply with the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. Id. In addition, as
20 explained in Section C of this brief, the proposal violates numerous design regulations in the
21 Code. The enlargement is, therefore, non -conforming.
22 At the beginning of the hearing, the Examiner questioned the expansion of this non -
23
conforming use. See Examiner Decision at 2. He stated:
24
HEARING .EXAMINER: May — I don't know if this is the
25 appropriate time — what triggers conforming or non -conforming —
26 there are a number of areas in the project where you've indicated
thins are non -conforming ... can a non -conforming — legal non-
C,
$ricldin &Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Aeome � at .
1ao1 �o„� Avenue,. Site 3303
,
GROWTH- 9 Se rtle WA 98154
TeL (206) 2648600
Fac P6) 264-9300
I conforn3ing use be expanded under our Code? And is there some
2 trigger factor?
3 TRvM4ONS: As long as it's. not more than a 50 percent expansion.
In terms of the actual structure, we have a 140,000 square foot
4 structure existing. The applicant is only proposing a 16,000 square
foot addition.
5
6 Transcript of Proceedings (Apr. 27, 2010) at 5, lines 9-1 S.
7 From reading this exchange, it is evident that the City staff interpreted RMC 4-10-050(A)
g incorrectly. The City staff was referring to the Code requirements for "alterations" as if those
9 were the conditions for "expansion." But the conditions regarding the cost of 50 percent of the
10 value of the building or structure do not apply to expansion, only alterations. Unfortunately, the
11
Hearing Examiner and the City Council accepted that incorrect interpretation of the City Code.
12
The Examiner's Decision,_ which was affirmed by the Council, states:
13
14 The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet
current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street,
15 the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or
complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and
16 parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square
foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum
17 front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the tradeoff is
18 allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized
store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the
19 excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other
particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the
20 Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards
would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a
21 modest remodel.
22 Examiner's Decision at 16 (1 3). There is no reference to or acknowledgment of RMC 4-10-050
23
by the Examiner in his conclusion.
24
25 Because this involves interpretation of the Code, review of this issue by this Court is
26 under de novo review pursuant to RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b). RN`HG requests that the Court reverse
Brickli . & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Lan,
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY !W1 Fourth Acnerue, saite 3303
GROWTH- 10 Seattle WA 98154
Tel. P)O) 264-860D
Fac 0- 2649300
I
21
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the decision of the City on the grounds that it erred in its interpretation of the Code and, therefore,
erred in approving this illegal expansion of a non -conforming structure.
4. The, City's desim regulations do not su ersede Code provisions that
Prohibit the illegal expansion of a non -conforming structure
Seeing that the Examiner had interpreted the Code improperly, RNHG requested
reconsideration and pointed out that the proposal constituted an illegal expansion of a non-
conforming use. In response to Renton Neighbors' argument in its request for reconsideration
and appeal, the Hearing Examiner and Wal-Mart made the remarkable argument that RMC 4-10-
050(A)(4) does not apply to the Vital -Mart project because the City's design regulations somehow
supersede provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, including the non -conforming provisions.
That is an incredible statement that. has no support whatsoever in the Code. It is a tortured
reading of RMC 4-3-100.
The section referred to by the Examiner (RMC 4-3-100) says, in so many words, that all
development in the commercial arterial (CA) zone, including Big Box, is required to comply with
the urban design regulations. RMC 4-3-100(B)(2) and (4). That means that a proposal to enlarge
a non -conforming structure must comply with the design regulations. Nowhere in the design
regulations does it say that the design regulations supersede RMC 4-10-050. Design regulations
are meant to be an "overlay" to other regulations that set forth standards for design. The Urban I
Design Regulations exist in addition to and on top of other regulations in the Code. Not even the
staff report adopts this incredible idea that somehow projects are exempt from the non-
conforming provisions by the Urban Design Regulations.
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY
GROWTH- 11
Brickfin & Newman, LLP
Ana-ep at Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, suite 3303
senile WA 98154
Tel. (Md) 2648600
Fsm (2pG) 26449300
I C. The Wal-Mart Proposal Violates the City's Design Regulations
2 Stepping away from the issue of non-conformance, the second issue presented to this
3
Court is whether the Hearing Examiner decision to approve the Wal-Mart expansion proposal
4
should be reversed because it violates the City's design regulations applicable to District D in
5
RMC 4-3-100.
6
7 1. The City of Renton designregulations envision a vibrant. walkable,
pedestrian friendly commercial area
8
The Wal-Mart expansion is subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to
9
10 District "D" in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those regulations,
11 the City of Renton has set forth a regulatory vision for the area. The requirements were adopted
12 with an eye towards replacing the current look of commercial areas in District "D" with more
13 vibrant, walkable, pedestrian -friendly retail areas. That vision echoes the goal and intent of the
14 CA zoning. See RMC 4-2-020(L), The purpose of the CA zone is to evolve from "strip
15
commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning
16
17, and pedestrian orientation, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access,
18 amenities and boulevard treatment with greater densities. RMC 4-2-010(L).
19 The design regulations apply to all development in the CA zone. RMC 4-3-100(B)(5).
20 Big box retail in the Commercial Arterial zone is required to comply with the design regulations
21 applicable for District D. RMC 4-3-100(B)(2).
22 The Urban Design Regulations were established in accordance with and to implement
23
policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton
24
25 Comprehensive Plan. RMC 4-3-100(A)(I). The purpose of the provision is to establish two
26 categories of regulations: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met and (b) "guidelines" that,
BrickUn & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY A�megS"
1LA] Fouxth Aveauc, Suite 3303
GRO7 V`TH- 12 Sntdc WA 99154
Td. qw) 2648600
Fax. (7.06) 2649300
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in determining if the
proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. RMC 4-3-1 OO(A)(8).
The intent and goals of these requirements are expressed in each section. Some of the
relevant sections state:
(Site design and building locations) intent: To ensure that
buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so
that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for high
density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from
public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity
throughout the district.
(Building location and orientation) Intent: To ensure visibility of
businesses, establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that
pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of
structures so that natural light and solar access are available to
other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and
definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate
transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses in
the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the
street.
(Building entries) Intent: To mare building entrances convenient
to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further
the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban
character of the district.
(Pedestrian environment) Intent: To enhance the urban character of
development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by
creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from the
streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian
environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant
to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access
points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi-
modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other
vehicular traffic.
(Pedestrian amenities) Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify
the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY AAve u ,
100i Fourtrth vtS
nuq Suite 3.103
GROWTH- 13 Seattle AIA 98154
TeL (106) 264-8600
F= (206) 264-9300
1 that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and
under typical seasonal weather conditions.
2
3 (Building architectural design) Intent: To encourage building
design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a
4 human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are
suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
5 retail architecture.
6 (Parking and vehicular access) Intent: To maintain active
7 pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots
primarily in back of buildings.
8
RJMC 4-3-100. These are just a few samples of the intent statements throughout the design
9
10 requirements. They provide a general feeling of the vision that Renton has for this area. The
I I intent statements are followed by rainirnum standards or guidelines to carry out the vision.
12 The goal is to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC
13 4-3-100. Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian
14 activity is to be encouraged through design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that
15
pedestrian use of the district is facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the
16
17 pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact df parking lots is to be
18 mM1=ed and active pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in
19 back of buildings. Id.
20 2. The Wal-Mart proposal violates the City's desigg regWations
21 The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet the City's vision nor does it meet the specific
22 regulatory requirements that were enacted to carry out this vision. The proposal is for a typical
23
Wal-Mart Big Box expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Superstore with franchise retail
24
architecture and a "sea of asphalt" located between the building and the front property line. Wal -
25
26 Mart has expanded a "pedestrian" path in the parking lot as an afterthought. But it is not a
$rickhn & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY nroh Aveeys u �"
GROWTH- laol Forrct!•, �s�u� Suirc 3303
14 Scnrle �4A 98154
'Tel. (206) 264-$600
Fac CM06) 2649300
I pedestrian -oriented design by any measure. It is a traffic -oriented design. The proposal is for
2 exactly the opposite of what the City requires in its regulations. Approval of the proposal
3
undermines the City's attempt to change the area.
4
The record could not be more clear — the Wal-Mart proposal is inconsistent with at least 20
5
6 minimum standards in the design regulations. See Preliminary Report to the Examiner (Apr. 27,
7 2010). In the Preliminary Report to the Examiner, the staff incorporated a table in its review of
g compliance with District D Design Guidelines. Id. Throughout the table, the staff reported
9 repeatedly that the project is "not compliant" with various minimum standards listed. The
10 Examiner's Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff s analysis of the proposal's
11
compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Examiner Decision at 7-16 (128). The table
12
shows that the Wal-Mart proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the
13
14 Design Regulations.
15 For example, the minimum standard for parking and vehicular access is that "no surface
16 parking shall be located between the building and the front property line or the building and side
17 property line on the street side of a corner lot." Exanvner Decision at 9. The intent of that
18 standard is to "maintain. active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots
19
primarily in back of buildings." The Examiner's table concludes that the proposal is "not
20
21 compliant'' with this minimum standard.
22 Another minimum standard requires that Wal-Mart "plant at least one tree for every six
23 parking spaces." Examiner Decision at 9. The proposal is "not compliant." Id. The intent of
24 that requirement is that landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the
25 area, provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures, and other
26
benefits.
Bricklin & Newmau, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 1007 FDunh Aver _ suite 5303
GROWTH- 15 Seattle Nd 99154
TeL (206} 2648600
Fal. (206) 2549x00
1 There are 18 other minimum standards where the proposal is reported as being "not
2 compliant" in the Hearing Examiner's Decision. See Examiner's Decision at 8-16. Overall, the
3
proposal should have been denied because of these failures to meet the mandatory minimum
4
standard design requirements.
5
V. CONCLUSION
6
7 In conclusion, RNHG requests that the Court reverse the City of Renton's Decision on the
8 Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval for the reasons stated above and order that the Wal-Mart
9 proposal be denied.
10 Dated this 0 of January, 2011.
13
Respectfully submitted,
12
BRICKLLN & NEWM,AN, LLP
1�
14
15 By.
Claudia M. Newman, WSBA No. 24928
16 ,Attorneys for Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth
17
18 IZNEIGIS�perio�Openist� Brief
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BrickHn & Newman, LLP
OPEIL�TG BRIEF Off' RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Attomry
Av az lam
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
GROWTH -16 Searde WA 99154
TeL {206) 254.8600
Fa M6) 264-9300
Y
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Nrmutes
OWNER. Peter Bonnell
Bonuell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, #504
Bellevue, WA 98004
CONTACT{Al'PLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND-
1505 Wmdake Ave N, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Walmart Expansion Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
May 13, 2010
LOCATION: 743 R.amier Ave 5
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the
Wdstitng Walma tTetaU facility, which would include 16,000
square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of
4,000 square fed in the Card= Center and an al#oximate
16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation, Approve
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on April. 20, 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information an file with tb.e application, fiald
ehec mg, tha property and surroundng area, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows;
it
T l:e follow,irg minutes are a summanp of rhe April 27, 2010 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The bearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9-00 z.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties vrishing io testify were affirmed by the Exa i=,
The fallowing erhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1_ Project file containing the original
application, reports, staff comments and other
dacumeatation T)ert ri mt to this request -
Exhibit Na. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood DetaS] Map
AiTACMVIENT A
•
Drofiak ApaT-=ents Site Plan Approval
Pile No.: LUA-09-112; SA -1-1
May 13, 2010
Page 2
11
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timruons Associate Planner, Com muriity
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7* Street and S Grady Way_ The
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Desimation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existizng Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is farther proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to
approximately 4.000 square fleet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non-mnformin g, parldrig is an example of non-conformin- as well as
other aspects &the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existimg, the applicant is proposing only 127 now parking stalls,
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing iandscaping, lighting and drainage from the site.
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The. FrIvironmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Sig'rnifrcance — Mitigated with 6
measures. No appeals were filed.
The project does comply with aIl policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted arithin
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front vard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback There are no other setbacks nee fired in this zone. The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maxim= front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recentl- approved for the site which would aUow 'Waltnart to site structure on its own building
pad. The shQrt.plat has not been recorded and this must be done.
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4 The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along. the eastern fagade to break up the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetaiion an site should
be retained as much as possible. The existirn_ parldnR lavout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could nor be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street
Drafiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA•-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 3
frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the pexinieter
of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of
landscaping along SW 7's Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parldng stalls and that is
being done in the parking area-, 'Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745 r.
parking stalls are proposed, winch requites 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed
30,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meetitzg the requirements.
Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC.
The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,540 square feet to
30 cultic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is
engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show
compliance with refuse and recycle standards.
Staff'•has received several lettm as well as a petition that demonstrate the commuzaity support for this e xpazimon.
property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project,
Vehiculax circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the
rem facffity, 'there was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to
Rainier Ave S, the .applieant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well w enhance it
wif pedestx= scale lighting. An additional pedekwin connection ]las bean proposed from the northern portion
of the stricture to.SW 7' Street.
The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the
msting lights an site and =a-aun&ng properties. A lighting Plan needs to be provided showing both existing
and new ijgbting plans chat conform with spillover regarnemeats of the Code.
A drainage report has-been submitted stabng.that •the proposed project improvements generate less t1m .5 cubic
feet per seeond;1herefore, the project is -exempt from the flow control •rmFir=ents. Water quality treatment
has been provided in -the form of a new bio-swale ju& north of the expanded parking lot area.
The project is ionated within Design District D, which includes mimzimum design standard that are to be met and
if not met, they must demonstrate how they matt the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban
Design District D.
The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of
refuse anal recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply vritb the minimurra
standards for pariang and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation
is existing. and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use Of
landscaping. The proposal does aompiy with all minimain standards within, the pedestrian enviromnaent Most
of the Tninirnum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an
irrigation plan must be provided.
There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing stricture, the intent
for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale
element. Additional elem cuts could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done.
Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevatian of the fa.gade. A building materials and colors
board must be. provided to staff iia order to in= that quality materials have been provided
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
Pile No.: I.UA-09-112, SA --H
May 13, 201 0
Page 4
Jack McCuIlQ_uMcCullough 8f Hill, 701 5"' Avenue, Ste. 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant
looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and -decided that they could'not snake it work The proposal
presented today seems appropriate for the site.
There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have ben expanded rather than
building more landscape bays. The parking, requirements of Che code do create a range within whicb the proiect
must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of
view. The 745 stalls proposed for this' site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to
support this facility.
Teff Chambers PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste, 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss
some of the items previously brought forward,
in relation to landscaping, during the discussions void; staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many
of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway
would be widemed out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from
approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site,
which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-.1.2 feet wide. By
doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed
new landscaping_ Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7a', which was part of the
request from staff.
The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been. working very ef6cieutly in
those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage.
The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encotrages
parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around I G -foot candles. The current parking lot
meets that uniformity. 'V�rhen 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of
the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a
bigQcr safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would
increase, blare would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this
site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located.
Usunobun Osaaie, Larry D, Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste, 222, Dalias, TX 75202'statcd that
they would be We to make the suggested changes tri the facade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant
look.
The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The
design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation, The will continue to work
with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize
a workable solution that will make everyone happy. They want the City to be happy vtb this expansion.
Jack McCullough stated that they were going, to take an emstinvg facilin, that is non -conforming in sorer. respects
and make it better. Code does not require full conformance. The;, are consistently working with staff to make
the project better,
Kavren Kittri ck Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Shon
Plat- All the issues reCardinr, storm drains etc have been worked out to the City'r, satisfaction. It is still subiect
to final reviev, and permitting'.
0 !
Drofiak Apart -meats Site Plan Approval
File NO.- LUA=09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 5
Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they
were subject to the foot candies being at a level that was Gammon throughout the City at .that time. It mostly
a matter of a r -ice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is
wasnot going to wander off the property. 'There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage &wale on the
west, that ligbting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one.
The Examiner called for 5xtlier testimony regarding this piglect- Theae was no One else wishing to spear, and
no further comments from sta$ Tfze heating closed at 16:56 am -
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &'RECKNDLTION
Laving reviewed the record m this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following;
FINDINGS:
1. ne applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval.
2, The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Enviromnenta3 Policy Act (SEPA) dOcumentatian
and other pertinent ruatedale was entered into the reowd-as Exhibit #l.
3. The Errviroutnental P-0mew Caramittee (ERC), the City`s responsible official issued a Deteem;iination of
Non -Significance - lvfitigated (DAIS -M).
4. The subj act proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the mattes.
5. There was no opposifion from the public regarding the sub}ectproposal.
6. The subject sine is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart
store and parking area as well as the former Billy Md e's building and parking area. The site does
not include other buildings or panic ng areas to the north, smith and east that Lucludes the Columbia Bank
and 3iairay Mac's.
7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan desigaates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not
mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
8. The subject site -is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and lM (Medium Industrial). Tire vast
maj ority of the subj ect site is zoned for commercial uses with the -most westerly portion of the site
limited to IM uses. The subject site -is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines.
9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959-
10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing. and future W almart areas
from surravnding properties. 'That short plat has been approved but not recorded.
IL The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or 13.6 ages.
12. The subject site is essentially level.
0 0
DT-ofApartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA.-09-1 12, SA -H
May 13, 2010
page 6
13. The subject site contains 99 siPificant trees. Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant
proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would
be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is
proposed (see below).
14. Access to the subj eat site Rill be unchanged
15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing
complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its
garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden
space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas
along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front
facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade new its northeast corner and two
smaller additions near the northwest corner of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127
additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls.
16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The
applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification. There
will be two entrances into the store from the east The two entrances will generally divide access to the
general rnerchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet
rooves that curve in wing -like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving
central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas
would contain seating and trash cans. The rooflihe will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches.
17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden aru,to contain more retail space, The new garden center
will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the nortb will be 21 feet
4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme.
18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and
recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit These units have
been demonstrated to 'handle wastefrecychng materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an
area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect
of the proposal.
19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along
eastern roofline as weIl as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest
around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the
appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the
applicant to sabmit materials boards to verify the qualit�r and appearance features of the exterior
treatments.
?G. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to rhe
street and reduce the visual impact of parking along tboroughfams..The proposed expansion would not
comply with this requirement providing a setback cif approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff
found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex if does not
trigger a need to conform to the newer_ current standards. The setbacks on the north, west and south are
respectively 1 0 ieeL 65 feel and 15 feet. Pard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the
proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meetim-, code requirements. The proposed maximum height of']. 2
fee; 4 inches meets the heighl limit of the CA ?one's 50 feet.
Drofsak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LVA -09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 7
21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of
the site in the area whm-e Billy McHale' s was located- Code permits a range of_parking and the
proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the
top range of 745 stalls: The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need far the larger
complMent of parking.
22. Code requires 26,07$ square fact of landscaping for the 745 -stall parking lois. The applicant proposes
h
65,690 gquare feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The
new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The
older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions
to maintain landscape spacing in panting aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the
existing configuration would eliminate mmmy of the lsayes, mature trees located in the parting areas.
perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These
landscape. areas will be enlarged althou h they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of
the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans.
r. 23. The development -will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a'mitigatiott
fee to help offset the impacts .of .those additional trips.
24. The uses surrounding the subject site are its, a bank, tin store, retail pad and car dealership.
Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue.to be compatible with these various uses_
25. 5tormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio -Soule to treat surface parking lot nimof£
The proposal does comply with the impervious sarface rests of Cotte. There was concern that
lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales.
26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the
vast7najority-of-the-subject site is gov=ed by tbe-CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies.
Stag' determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designafions, Commercial
Corridor, should be applied..
27. The existing parking areas are currently sewed by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall.
Code =n-eotdy restricts ligliting standards to not more than 25 feet in height The applicant has
pvposed matching the existing pole heist. The applicant noted that the taller tights provide better
overall lighting- Any change to light standards should be clone bycode ameudment. There is nothing
critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards, Those standards apply to all
development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. Whale the
expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles
should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights
throughout the complex..
28- The following Table contains staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D
Guidelines:
a) Review of Gornpiiance to District 't1' Design Guidelines
The site is located within Design'District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design
Regulations where the regulations are appiicabie_ As demonstrated in the table below the proposal
C1
Drofialc Apamneats Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-1.12, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 9
meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval
are met.
AND BUILDING LOCATION;
o ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other bulidings so that the Vision of the
Menton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility fromights•-of-way;
pESIGN
and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district.
esign and Street Pattern:
To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts
organized for of iciency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and
ies of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle
circulation; and provide service to businesses.
Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to
N/A
public arterials.
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
N/A
prornotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway
system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest);
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design
treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function,
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian-Driented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of
pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street
parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) Internal or local roads (public or private).
2. aufiding Location and Orientation:
Intent; To ensure v'ssibliity of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways;
organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structure
so that natural light and solar access are. available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual
character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buhdings,
parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near,the
street.
+�
Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with dear connections to the sidewalk.
✓
Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but
instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard.
3. Building Entries:
intent: 3o make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries
furtherthe pedestrian nature of the frontin sidewalk and the urban character of the district
Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing
✓
a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public
sidewalk, and include human -scale elements.
Minimum Standards Multiple buildings on the same site shall prav'ide a continuous network
N/A
of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view
to building entries.
aper-Minirnurn Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or ar
5pace such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protectior: .
at #east 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access.
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property eaee:,
adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development;
a 0
Droaak Apartments Site Plan Approval
Pile No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 9.
intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value or Kenton's long-established, existing.
nei hborhaads are preserved.
Minimum Standard: Careful" siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve .a
compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms -of
d
building height bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be
considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses:
a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in
order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent
yards;
b. building proportions, including step -Backs on upper levels;
r^ Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or
d. Roof Eines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development
s. Service Dement location and Design:
intend To reduce the -potential negative impacts of service elements (Le., waste receptacles, loading docks) by
locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in
high visibil_q areas.
Minimum Standard. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the irn a
on the pedestrian environment and adiacent uses. Service elements shall _be_concentrated
. nd located where the are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use see
-a
lllugMtlon. RMCA-3-100E7e .
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed,
consistent with RMC 4-4-1)90, Refuse and Recydables Standards, and RMC 4-4-D95, Screening
and Storage HeightlLocation Limitations.
Molt Compliant
5 Comment Elevations for the refuse onrr recyde enclosure ~rete not provided wkh the site
plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the upplicurit submit
elevationsfor the refuse and reable endosure.
NFInimurn 5tandare din
and ul .areas shall be enclosed on all sides including the roof and screened
collection ti
i�at Carnpliant
around their erimeter b a wall r fence and have self-closin dents.
Comment.- See comments above,
_gff
Minimum Standard The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. .
Not Compliant
St Comment: See comments above.
Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-
+� oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides
of such fan€4.
E. Gateways: Hot Appiicubfe
R. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various
modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic vaiumes and other.impacts
from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of
parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without
parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades,, minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use
access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
1. L=2tien of Parking:
Intent To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of
buildings,
Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front
Not Compliant property line or the building and side property line an the street side of a corner lot.
St Comment.' The bulk of the parking is existing onto` iocated in between the retail store and
0
IDrofzak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LliA-09-112, SA -2
May 13, 2010
Page 10 -
0
Rainier Ave 5/5R 167, The applicant is proposing to add o total of 127 odditionaf parlaing stalls
of which most would be vacated to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing
parking 'iat. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment
and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing o
substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual
impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site.
Specificalty perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave 5/513 167 is proposed at a width of
approximately 55 feet and 5W 7t' St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20
feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to
minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street
.2. Design of Surface Parking:
Intent 7o ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking
lots wherever passible.
Minimum Standard: Parking lot fighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties.
staff comment: A lighting plop was not submitted as part of the application materials,
Not Compliant properties.
staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent
properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site
fighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction or building permit approval.
yfinimum Standard. Ail surFace aarkine lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact
3. Structured Parking Garages: Nat
C. PEDEMMAN ENVIRONMENT:
intent. 7o enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Cerner and the Center Village by creating
pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the
pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on
sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public
transportation systems in orderto reduce other vehicular traffic,
1_ P-athways through Parking tats:
in:ireint: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking iots.
Minimum Standard; Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be
provided throughout parking areas.
Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided
perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart.
Z. Pedestrian Cireuiation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages far pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the
Dedestrian environment.
Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation systern
that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk
system and adjacent properties.
I/
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above
the level of vehicular travel,
.f
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be
differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials.
✓
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the faeades of buildings shall be of
sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically,
N/A
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retaii buildings 200 or more
feet in width Imeasured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 -feet in width.
The walkway shall include an 9 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street
0
Drofiak Apart3nents Site Plan Approval
File No.; LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 201 G
Page 11
trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-34DO.G4d).
•�
.(b) To increase business.vislbility and accessibility, breaks inthe tree coverage adjacent to
major building entries shall be allowed.
✓
.(c) For ail other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to
accommodate the anticipated number of users.
+�
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping
shall not obstruct visibility of walkway orsight lines to buiiding entries,
Minitnum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface
unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
,--anticipated
number of users and complementary to the design of the development,
3. pedestrian Amenities:
intent To create attractive spaces that unifythe building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function fora variety of activities, at all
times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
✓
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian m erhead•weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees,.canopies, or building overhangs. These eiernents shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet
wide alongat least 75 perrent.of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15
feet above the ground -elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
Minimunrr Standard: Site furniture provided In public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal -
and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably
maintained.over an extended period of time.
w/
Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian across
to public spaces or bulidng entrances.
O. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION
AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE,:
Intent To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define iogi®] areas of -pedestrian and
vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area bythe community. To have areas suitable
for -both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient
amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and dimatic
relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the. eommuntty.
✓ Minimum Standard --A Deryious area shall be landsca ed see RMC4-4-C7R Landsca ire
✓ Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge
and building, as determined by the'City of Renton.
N/A
Minimum Standard: 4n designated pedestrian --oriented streets, street trees shall be installed
with tree grates, For all other streets, street tree treatment shalt be as determined by the City
of Renton (see Illustration, subsection RMC4-3-100.H3a).
+,
Minimum Standard, The proposed iandsraping shall be consistent with the design intent and
program of the building, the site, and use.
r
Minimum Standard: The -landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping,
through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or
concept of the development,
Minimum Standard: Surface parking, areas shall be screened by landscapinp, in order to
reduce views of parked can from streets see RMC 4,4-08DF7 Landsmue fie iiirernentsi.
Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk see
illustration. subsection RMC 4-3-1D13.4 R .
f
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 3D lineal feet of street
frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet.
Drofiak :S.pas-tinents Site Plan Agprosral
Pile No.: 1,UA-09-112; SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 12
2.. Recreation Areas and Common Dpen Space: Not Applicable
E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
-intent-.To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfot"table an a human scale, anG
uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured our
feet from the top of the root ball) respectively.
+�
Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped
area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between
three and four feet
•�
Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least
90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of Installation.
Not Compliarit
Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to
occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure
required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation.
St Comment Stuff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit o
landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years 'in sufficient
amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit,
✓
Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows:
(1) Re uired Amount:
ToW Number of Spaces
Minimum Required Landscape Area*
15 to 50
15 square feet/parking space
51 to 99
25 square feet/parking space
100 or more
35 square feet/parking space
(2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape
areas.
Not-Compifant
(3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that
reach a mature Leight of at least 35 feet, Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be
eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball?
respectively.
Staff Comment The applicant is proposing to retain most df the trees on site in order to
maintain the rnature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the
existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. 'Therefore the
landscape sparing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not
be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not
necessary. Alf new parking areas would com with the minimum standard for tree spacing.
./
(4) Lip to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous.
Y
(5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage w'ith'in three years o .
pianbng; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is compiete.
✓
(6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
,✓
Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are
kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape
areas.
Staff Comment: An irrigation pion was nor submitted as part of the application. Therefore staf
recommends, as o condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation pJan to and b,.
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permr'
appraval.
2.. Recreation Areas and Common Dpen Space: Not Applicable
E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
-intent-.To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfot"table an a human scale, anG
uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
0 0
Draf1a1; Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-49-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 13
ffaf
re.
racter anel iVtassing:
re that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all
ng, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All building facades shall Include modulation or articulation at intervals
of no more than forty feet (0).
StafF-Comment- The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the
southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with
the modulation requirements for'the southern and western facades. The two street -fa cing
elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with
architectural elements; however these facades would also not comply with the minimum
modulation requirement, . The applicant is proposing two SD -foot vestibules along -the
approximate 500jbot eastern fagade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which
exceeds the 405vot intervals. However, extending poropet; clerestories, canopies,
ornamented fighting and a lame planter box with- an iconic tree have been provided in order to
distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large
'fagade. Based on the limitations of uttering the. existing structure in addition to the many
architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest
along the eastern fagade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7a' St
facing fogade has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fagade includes the use
of three pilaster eiemerrts similar to that which is used to wrap around the Gamlen Center.
While the proposed architectural elements add visual lritemsT, which break up the wall plane,
,there are additional elements that could be added or used to repiace the pilaster elements
which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staffrecommends, as a
condition of approva4 that the applicant submit revised eievatian4 fur the northern spade,
that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval.
Z. Ground -Level Details:
intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the Intended human -scale character of the
pedestrian environment and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual
interr-st.
Not compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways are prohibited, A wail (including building facades and retaining walls) is
considered a ,blank wail if.
(a) tt is a ground floor wall or portion of ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a
horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, datar, building
modulation or other architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater
and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing,
StQf Go r 7ment: See Comments above.
Nat Comp#iant Minimum Standard. Where blank walls are required 'or unavoidable, blank walls shall be
treated with one or more of the following:
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground
cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wal l;
(b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing
that meets the Intent of this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
f e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
0
Drofiak Apartinents Site Plan Approval
File No.: 1.,ZA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Patre 14
Minimum Standard: Treatment of biank Ovalis shall be proportional to the wall.
V
Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other
landscape feature along the facade's ground floor.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75
percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation
facing the designated pedestrian-orlented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or
door's.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the
eastern fopode. However, the applicant has provided. extending parapets, clerestories,
canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree
in order to Break up the monotony of the large fopade and provide human scale elements.
Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural
features and pedestrian amenities provided stuff hos found that the applicant has achieved
visual interest along the eastern fapde for the distant public. However, additional elements
could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of
the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as ❑ condition of approval, the applicant
provide rev&ed elevatians.for the eastern fapade prior to building permit approval, The
revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are,
beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is
encouraged to include one or more of the fallowing in order to .achieve o human scale
character: additional glazing, artwork and/ar planting beds containing trees, shrubs,
evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade,
Mir irnum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the fallowing:
.x
(a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building.
Hrnuever, screening may be.applied to provide shade and energy efficiency, The minimum
amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent.
(b) Oispiay windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than
permanent displays.
(c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing
d
(d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited.
5, Building hoof Lines:
intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and
contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
d
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied
and interesting roof profiies;
(a) Extended parapets;
{b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the
equipment is not visible within 154 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
v✓
Minimum Standard 5creenin� features shall blend with the architectural character of the
building,cori5istent with RMC 4-4-095E Roof -Tog Eauioment.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of erooseC
portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher
elevations.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the appiic❑rnt match the calor
of the roof -mounted mechanical equiomerrt to the color of exposed portions of the miff.
4, Building Materials:
0
Drofiak Apa�tmmts Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Paye 1
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance overtime; encourage me use or mazcridn,
that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the
nei hborhaod.
Not Compliant
MinimurnStandard: All sides of Buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open
space shall be finished on afl sides with the same building materials, detailing, and rotor
scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Staff Comment: It appears that all sides -of the structure are finished using the same color
scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure• that quolity materials are used staff
recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to buiiding permit approval.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture,
pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades.
gqff Comment• See comments above.
Not cornpfiant
Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Staff Comment: See Condition above.
Not Copkant
ms
Minimum -Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as calors, brick or metal
banding, patterns, or textural changes.
Ste Comment See comments above.
F. SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage
signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to
the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and int,!rest
N/A
Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral art of the design approach to the building.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and Signs shall be sized appropriately for their location.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs Include:
1. Pole signs;
It. Roof signs;
W. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or Illuminated cabinet
signs). Exceptions: Back-lit-logc signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are
signs with only the individual letters back -lit.
N/A
Minimum Standard: In mixed use and muftl-use buildings, sign age shall be coordinated with
the overall building design.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of
primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support
structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to
provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may
incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director.
tV--
N/A smvm Standard: Entry shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
G. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas,
pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual
attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night-
ightplot
NotCompliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior iighting regulations lacated in
RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior Dn-5lte_
Staff Comment Stuff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required
to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without carting excessive
glare on adjacer►t properties at the time of budding permit review. Pedestrian scale and
downfighting shall be used in all.cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement,
unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is
specifically listed as exempt from provisions focated in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-51te.
0
DroBak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 16
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, -but shall not be
allowed to directly project off-site.
5Luff Cn menC See comments above
Not Compliant
minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and
aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at buiiding facades,
and at pedesMarr-oriented spaces.
5t Comment. See comments above
CON CLUSI01\1S :
I , The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those. criteria
are generally represented in part by the following eumneratiory
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
e. Conservation of property values;
f. Provision 'for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
2. The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operati on could create new
iobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract
patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The ne , design features aril] also create a
more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City.
3. The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements.for the
setback along its frmtage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only au incredibly large expansion or
complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed
approximately 16,040 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maxim= front }yard
setback of 15 feet As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion
and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive'setback. The
building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot cvverkge meets the tonin«
Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesi-- of the
pang area for what is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer siandard. iwouId
rem.o-ve the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be deteriniiic:d
when actual permits for construction are submitted.
4. The twc�-stony facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and th-
Drofiak Apartrnmts Site Plan Approval
File Na.: LUA-09-112, SA -14
May 13, 2010
page 17 .
large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the
site and surrounding sites. The extaasive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code,
actually helps tfse transition between a rather large big bcrx store and its neighboring uses. The
neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background
Wak art store, The new facade treatment'with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the
store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the
existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the pang islands will be enlarged and the
newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a beam neighbor tl= the
existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the
applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter
landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot.
5. The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping m
the northern parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parlting .
is a dominant_feat= and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant
does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape
Sequirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall. landscaping. Pedestrian ]inks through the site and
to the suzrannding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow -pedestrians to circulate on
the site and to and from the site.
6. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values.
7. Access to the subject site will not be -changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the
asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of can oimling the lot lool;iagg for parking thereby cutting
down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated,
pedestrian pathways -and amenities near the front of the store have been enhmoed.
8. While the store has a large footprint, it is rather lout -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be
available to adjoin uses drat share the block with the applicant`s use_
9. The store is served by existing urban inirastructure. The applicant will be providing additional
stormwatmr treatment with an additional bioswale.
10.' In addition -to-the general site plam review criteria discussed above, there are District .Cruidcbnes that are
applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted M'
this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in
most cases the applicant's modest expansion -meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has
justified why their proj ect may not precisely meet some of the standards.
11. The applicant sought and received a -modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and
it appears Haat the proposed area and -methods meet the obj ectives of the standards. The enclosure will
have to meet the standards for contazzrnent and screening_
l 2. As noted above, the 16,000 square feet of rernodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the
street to 16 feet. Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the ' overall] block and its
surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional .or larger landscape specimens should
be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in
the large space between the street and actual store.
13. The applicant dad not submit appropriate lighting details with, the exception of proposing light standards
Drofiak .4partmrnts Site.Plan Approval
Fite No.: LUA-09-1'12, SA -E
May 13, 2010
Page 18
that do not meet code specifications. That is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing
standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet_ As discusser) above, visitors to. the site will more than iik-Jy
not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is
art overriding reasan not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot
does not provide any justification. If the luting standards that City. has adopted are inadequate then
that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer
standards.
14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate
tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking lot landscaping than required and will be
supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter area's of the site. The applicant will
have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping.
15, staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building.
Decorative treatment in the way of c -,O sting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or
other architectural features including additional glazing ar false windows shall be used to comply with
the guidelines,
16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the
proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances.the existing buildins s appearance. The
additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parldng" but as
noted, additional parking cuts down. on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe
the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt
DECISION:
The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the fallowing conditions;
1. The applicant shall comply with the six raitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-
significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010,
2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the prop_rty's lot lines as depicted or
Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the
approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lint&, at the time of building permit, as long as all
development standards -of the CA zone can be met.
S. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prio, to building peririit
approval, Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closin«
doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing. is prohibited.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequattly provide for public safety;
without caring excessive glare an adjacent properties at tine time of building pezmt review. Pedestrian
scale anal downiighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement unless
altemative pedestrian scale liGhting has been approved administrative}y or is specifically listed as exempt
from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Ligthtina, aterioT On -Site. The applicant shall comply, with. the
newer standards including 25-f6ot height limitations.
5. The applicant shall submit a landseape maintenance surety deViGC for a period of no less than three v --a7 in
sufficient amount. as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to i-rrrparan+ occunanc"
permit.
0 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No_: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 19
6. The applicant shall submit m irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to construction or building permit approval
7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern fayade, which depict alternative methods to
mass and treat -the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Cuumt
Planning Project Managerprior to -building permit approval.
8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval
subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations. shall include
additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area., beneatb the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment m the way of contrasting or complementary paints or
additional molding trite or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be
used to comply with the guidelines. -
9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical .equipment to the color of exposed
portions of the roof.
10. he applicant sh&U subunit a materials and color board subject to the .approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
11. Additional or larger landscape specirams should be use *here smaller or stunted tne_ s might exist.
ORDERED -THIS 13" day of May 2010.
FRED J. KAUF AN
HEARING EXAN,[1NER
TRANSM1= THIS 13fi' day of May 2010 to the parties of record
Rocale Timmons Kays Kittrick
Community R Economic Dov Community 8: EGoriamio Dev
City of Renton City of Renton
Jack McCullough
McCullough & IEII
701 5a' Avenue, Ste,
Seattle, WA 98104
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
7220 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 48109
Peter B=ell
.Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, Ste, 509
Bellevue., WA 98004
Jeremy Smith, Manager
W almart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Usunobun Qsagie,
Larry D. Craighead Architects
2.11 N Record Street, Ste, 22
Dallas, TX 75202
Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Manager
Viralmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 48057
Huy Tran, Asst, Manager Sophom Clue, Assistant Anapoa Toleafoa ICS Loader
Walmart #2516 Wah art #2516 Walrn.art #x2516
743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave 5 743 Rzinier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057 Renton: WA 98057 Renton, 1A'A 98057
0 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -14
May 13, 2410
Page 20
Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr, Foods
Traffaney Black, Mgr. electronics
Brandi Hansen, Mgr
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart 92516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S.
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Sierra Schavricn, ICS Asssociate
Marl: Goodman
Tauasi Paaga, HR
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA- 98057
Renton, WA 48057
Renton, WA 98057
Nancy Chase, Dept Manager
William Carey, Jr. Safety Tun Ld.
Francis Canapi
Walmart #2516
W aimart #2516
Walmart #2516
743. Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98457
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Cheryl Harrelson
Josh Smith, Mgr. PetslChern/Paper
Levan, Dept. Mgr.
Walmart 92516
Walmast #2516
Waimart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, VirA 98057
Josie Mervetrs, Dept. Mgr
W alrnart #516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Irish Toy E. Layador, Ent, Sup -v.
Waltnart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton WA 98057
TRANSMI'T'TED THIS13th day of May 2010 to the following:
Mayor Denis Lain
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegiau, Council Liaison
Gregg Zirnrnennan, PBPVV Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
3ennifm- Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Senrices
Marty Viine-, Assistant CAO
Automotive
Valerie Reyes, ]CS Lead Supe. 2"6 Shift
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, R`A 98057
Dave Pargas, Fire
Lam Meckling, Building Officia-1
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Devolopment Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code. request for reconsideration must be filed in
wri4inm an or before 5.00 p.m- 1Viar 27.200. Anti aggrieved person feelinL• that the decision of the Examiner
I., ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure. errors of lav or fact. error in judgment, or the disco�lary of nein
evidence which could Dat be reasonably- ar,aiiable at the prior hearing ma; mane a Nwitten request for a review
by the Exar..niner within fourteen f 141 days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This reyuesi shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant.. and the Examiner may. after review of the
record. take further action as he deem!, proper.
Drafiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.. LUA-09-132, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 21
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, Chapter 8, Section I10, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meotiag other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An a veal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.. May 27.2010.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants mrM be required prior to approval bar City C_o nlcil or final �proceesing of the fife. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) co=uni.catians may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that patties to a land use decision may not cozen =i.cate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the laud use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council,
All communications concecning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication peffiits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence_ Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court,
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
OFFICE ORTHRHEARMG EXAMINER
FOR TIJE: CITY 0P RENTON
N RE; WALMART EXPANSION
SITE. PLAN APPROVAL
FILE ND.: L _!A 10=009, ECF, SA -H
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS'
CITE.' OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC 14EARING
TUESDAY, APRIL 27`h, 20I0
REN TON, WA'SHT14OT0N
.APPEARANCES:
Presiding: °FJZED KAUFKAN
Forthe Applicant: JACK McC 1LLOUGH
For -Development Servacess ROCALE TIMMONS
CERTIFICATION OF TRANS CROER
I, Kristina Wescon, prepared the attached trance ipt'from CD -recordings of the:above.-identified
proceeding. I certify under, penalty of:pedury under the laws ofthe State of W.ashiWon that the attached
is atrue;correct and complete transcript:'o'Fthose-:proceedings to the best ofbiv ability..
DATED tl is. day -of 201 q.
Kri 1�Jescatt
320. 'State Hwy :1;04
PO B -ox 255
Port Gamble W'A 983.64
3601"62.1-0315
1 HEARLNG EXAMINER: I would like to call to order the Tuesday, April 27tH, 2010
2 session of the Office of the Hearing Examiner. My name is Fred Kaufman. I am the Hearing
3 Examiner for the City. Seated to my front and left is Nancy Thompson. She does run recording
4 equipment. We do record the entire public proceeding. Development Services is represented
5 this morning by Rocale Timmons. She will be delivering the preliminary report to the Examiner.
6 It is a recommendation. It may be affected by any testimony we do receive at the public hearing
7 today. Other members of Staff may testify as necessary. A copy of today's agenda is posted
8 outside the Chamber doors. There also should be a copy of the agenda and a preliminary report
4 to the Examiner on the back credenza. If you haven't received a copy of those items, you can do
10 that now.
11 The purpose of this meeting is to hold a public hearing on the applications pursuant to
12 Ordinance Number 30-71. This hearing constitutes the hearing of the City Council. It is the
13 only public hearing which will be held on the matter unless the matter is continued.
14 Reconsideration by the Examiner or an appeal to the City Council will only consider the
15 evidence submitted at today's hearing.
16 Is it on? Because I don't hear it right now...
17 Unless I request additional time (inaudible) findings and conclusions will be issued in
18 fourteen days of today's hearing. In all rezones, preliminary plats and PUDs, the Examiner's
19 report is the recommendation to the City Council (inaudible) decision I issue is final. Further
20 information about the appeals and reconsideration procedures will be contained with the
21 Examiner's report. You may also contact the City Clerk's office, the Building — or Ms. Rocale
22 Timmons' division - or the Examiner's Office for further information about the appeal and
23 reconsideration procedures. Copies of the Examiner's report will automatically be sent to all
PAGE I
1 parties of record. If someone testifies, they will become a party of record. If someone is in
2 attendance — excuse me — if someone is in attendance who doesn't testify but would like to
3 become a party of record at the close of the hearing, then give Ms. Thompson your name and
4 address and we would be happy to include you on the roster.
5 Procedure is as follows, I will call the application, ask all those who are going to testify
6 to take the following affirmation. do you affirm that the facts you are now about to give in the
7 matter being heard is the truth, to which you respond, I do. At that point, Ms. Timmons will
8 review the preliminary report. Again, it will be affected by testimony and written submissions -
9 After that the applicants may testify in support; other members of the applicant's team may also
10 testify; if there is opposition to the request or neutral questions, there will be an opportunity for
11 that; support from the general public — there will also be an opportunity for that. During the
12 course of the proceeding, I may ask questions. If there are no unresolved questions, the hearing
13 would be closed. If for what ever reason, there are unresolved questions, the hearing would be
14 continued to a time and date certain. As I indicated, the hearing is recording_ We ask anybody
15 who testifies to step to microphone at the podium,. state your name, spell your last name, give
16 your complete mailing address including zip code. If someone speaks again out of turn, for
17 whatever reason, just restate your last name so we can tell who is testifying at that point on the
18 hearing recording. This is an administrative hearing. We do not adhere to strict rules of
19 evidence. Please anything you say should be relevant, please avoid repetitious testimony.
20 The only item on this morning's agenda -is the Wal-Mart application for expansion. The
21 file number is LUA 10-009. It is a site approval with the Examiner. The property is located at
22 743 Rainier Avenue South. The property site area is approximately 13.6 acres. And the
23 expansion involves the expansion of the existing retail store, the reduction in the garden center
PAGE 2
I area and some other modifications to the site including additional parking.
2 All those who are going to testify, if you could please raise your right hand.
3 FEMALE VOICE: (Inaudible) —
4 HEARING EXANENER: Oh —
5 FEMALE VOICE: (Inaudible) —
6 HEARING EXANENER: Oh — Yeah, we don't use the clock in our hearings. Some
7 people do. All those who are going to testify, please raise your right hand. Do you affirm the
8 facts you are now about to give in the matter being heard is the truth? If so, answer I do.
9 VOICES: I do.
10 HEARING EXAMINER: And if I can remember, we are trying to give the oath
11 individually or ask people to affirm that they've taken the oath when they come up to testify.
12 Ms.Timmons, you're on.
13 TRVIMONS: Good morning, Mr. Examiner. My name is Rocale
14 Timmons, Associate Planner for the Community and Economic Development Department and I
15 will be presenting Staff's recommendation. I'll begin by giving a brief description and then an
16 overview of the proposal's compliance with the City's comprehensive plan, the City's
17 development regulations, the site plan review criteria, as well as the design guidelines. Before I
18 begin, I would like to enter in the following exhibits: Exhibit Number I would be the project
19 file. Exhibit Number 2, the neighborhood detail map_ Exhibit Number 3, the site plan — and Pd
20 like to note that the site plan was not included in Staff's recommendation - Exhibit Number 3 is
21 actually the tree retention plan and Staff's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Exhibit
22 Number 4 will be the landscape plan. Exhibit Number 5 will be the tree retention plan — this too
23 was also in error to the Hearing Examiner — the actually recommendation included the landscape
PAGE 3
I plan for the Exhibit Number 5 —
2 HEARING EXAMINER: In other words, the exhibits in the latter part of the Staff
3 report are mislabeled?
4 TRdMONS: Correct.
5 HEARING EXAMINER: We'll go with the ones you are giving us now, then.
6 TE MONS: Exhibit Number 6 will be the east and west elevations.
7 Exhibit Number 7 will be the north and south elevations. Referring to Exhibit Number 2 before
S you on the overhead, the location of the site is just west of Rainier Avenue South and Hardy
9 Avenue Southwest, between Southwest 7"' Street and South Grady Way. The subject site
10 consists of 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the commercial
I 1 corridor of land use designation. I should note that there is a small panhandle on the western
12 portion of the site that is designated employment area valley as well as zoned industrial medium,
13 but for -- I'm sorry —
14 HEARING EXAMINER: And where is that because it's hard to distinguish. Is it that
15 top — it's not just the western portion?
16 TDAMONS: Actually, it's for the entire western portion of the site — the
17 exhibit before you today actually extends all the way to Southwest 7th Street and it's for the
18 entire panhandle.
19 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
20 TI_MMONS: Along the western portion of the site.
21 HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you.
22 TIMMONS: The completed project or the applicant is proposing an
23 expansion of the existing Wal-Mart big -box retail facility in the amount of sixteen thousand
PAGE 4
1 square feet which would result in a hundred and fifty thousand square foot retail facility and
2 approximately seven hundred and forty-five parking stalls. In addition to the sixteen thousand
3 square foot addition, the applicant is proposing a reduction in the garden center from nine
4 thousand to approximately four thousand square feet in area as well as an area would be set aside
5 just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. If I could refer to Exhibit Number 3 to
6 show that area. So the exhibit before you — the expansions would be depicted in yellow — the
7 outdoor sales area would be located just north of that expansion area or the yellow area on the
8 northern portion of the structure.
9 HEARING EXAMINER: May -- I don't know if this is the appropriate time — what
10 triggers conforming or non -conforming — there are a number of areas in the project where you've
11 indicated things are non -conforming — panting would be one of them, the size of the stalls, there
12 are some Iight standards and some other aspects of the project. Can a non -conforming -- legal .
13 non -conforming use be expanded under our Code? And is there some trigger factor?
14 TIMMONS: As long as it's not more than a fifty percent expansion.
15 With relation to the parking stalls, there are approximately six hundred and eighteen that are
16 existing_ The applicant is only proposing a hundred and twenty-seven new parking stalls. In
17 terms of the actual structure, we have a hundred and forty thousand square foot structure
18 existing. The applicant is only proposing a sixteen thousand square foot addition.
19 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. I may have some specific questions about why or
20 why they cannot increase landscaping or landscape spacing in the parking areas as we get to
21 those different criteria, so --
22 TEv4MONS: Okay. And as you alluded to, the applicant is also
23 proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage onsite. Access would
PAGE 5
1 continue to be provided via existing curb cuts along the perimeter streets and as part of the
2proposal, the applicant is not proposing to change the access. The environmental review
3 committee met in March of 2010 and issued a determination of non -significance mitigated along
4 with six mitigation measures. Those measures pertain to erosion control, geotechnical issues,
5 noise, archeological artifacts and then fire and traffic mitigation — these were also a part of those
6 mitigations. In April of 2010, or April I e, the appeal period ended and no appeals were filed.
7 Staff is recommending as a condition of approval the Hearing Examiner adopt all six mitigation
S measures as issued by the environmental renew committee. As mentioned before, the project is
9 located within the commercial corridor comprehensive plan designation. The proposal does
10 comply with all policies within that designation. As it relates to the development regulations of
11 the project, the project is located within the commercial arterial zoning designation. A big -box
12 retail and outdoor sales areas are outright permitted within that zone.
13 HEARING EXAMINER: What are outdoor retail sales?
14 TRYTMONS: So, it — outdoor retail sales, as —
15 HEARING EXAIVIINER: As opposed to the gardening type, so on —
16 Ti IMONS: It would be specifically for the garden center.
17 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
18 TIMMONS: Lot coverage for this site is limited to sixty-five percent.
14 The applicant is proposing a hundred and forty thousand square foot footprint on the sixteen acre
20 site — oh, I'm sorry -- not sixteen acre site — 13.6 acre site and that results in a lot coverage of
21 25.3 percent. In terms of setbacks, the CA zone requires a ten foot minimum front yard setback
22 and a maximum fifteen foot front yard setback. There are no other side or rear yard setbacks in
23 this zone. For the purposes of this review, the front yard setback would be assessed from Hardy
PAGE 6
I Avenue Southwest and Rainier Avenue South. The proposal does not comply with the
2 maximum front yard setback, however, the proposal to expand does increase the conformity of
3 the project, in that it moves closer — even if it's just by a couple of feet towards to Hardy Avenue
4 and Rainier Avenue South, thereby not requiring the applicant to apply for a variance. In
5 addition, a recent short plat has been approved for the site which would allow the Wal-Mart to
6 site its structure on its own building pad however the short plat has not been recorded therefore
7 Staff recommended as a condition of approval the applicant record the short plat or alternatively
8 depict lot lines as they are when the building permits come in.
9 HEARING EXAMINER: And do you have a depiction of the short plat; then, or - ?
10 T /L\40NS: I can enter is as Exhibit Number 8 —
11 HEARING EXAMINER: We're separating off, what, the bank property and the other
12 property in the front - ?
13 TDAMONS: Correct.
14 HEARING EXANMKER: - or east?
15 TONS: Do we need to enter into the record at this moment, or
16 would you like it to see it depicted on the overhead?
17 HEARLNG EXAMINER: We don't Have it in the exhibits so why don't we enter it as
18 Exhibit Number, I think it's 8, right?
19 FEMALE VOICE: (Inaudible) —
20 TEVEMONS: Exhibit 8 will include nine pages of the prepared short plat.
21 HEARING EXAMINER: Why don't you just show it visually right now — just the
22 general outline of how the short plat will affect, I guess, the properties between Rainier and the
23 western edge of this site -- it's 7`h and Grady on the north and south.
PAGE 7
1 TIM1tiIONS: Referring to page 8 of the 9 — actually, let's look at 9 of 9.
2 The proposal includes two existing lots which by — the existing lot line bisects Lot 1. The new
3 short plat would create three lots giving Columbia Bank its own building lot, which would be
4 Lot 2, and Jimmie Max Restaurant its awn lot, Lot 3, and then the Wal-Mart building pad would
5 have its own lot and that would be Lot 1.
6 HEARING EX 4N NER: Again, Lot 1 doesn't include just the store footprint then,
7 it's - I see it's below, by Lot Number 3, sort of labeled —
S TMNIONS: Correct, and that -
9 HEARING EXAMENER: - and includes all associated parking and --
14 TEVIMONS: Correct, and landscaping. I should mention that there is an
11 existing restaurant located on the western portion of the site, which is Billy McHales. The
12 applicant has proposed to demolish that restaurant as part of the short plat application and it is a
13 condition of short plat approval.
14 HEARD G EXANIIN'ER: Their onion rings will be missed but its been years — the
15 parking, though, will be shared by the Lot 1 and 3, is that how it's working out across access
16 easement or some kind?
17 TMAONS: Actually, no. The only access easement would be just for
18 that (inaudible) access. Each building — or each lot has its own parking for their pertaining
19 structure or structure on the site
24 HEARING EXAMINER. Okay. Thank you.
21 TDAMONS: Okay. I should — I'll move into — or I'll continue on with
22 the development regulation review. The CA zone limits its height to fifty feet. The applicant is
23 proposing a maximum height of thirty-two feet and four inches. If I could now refer to Exhibit
PAGE 8
I Number 6, which is the eastern and western elevations. And it is challenging the dimensions
2 depicted on the elevation however the existing structure is approximately twenty-one feet in
3 height. The expansion of the building to the north would match that existing height and the
4 applicant has provided varied roof shapes and heights along the eastern fagade in order to break
5 up the massing of the structure into smaller increments. The elements include a curved parapet
6 that you see in the center of the elevation which is the maximum height ofthe building at thirty-
7 two feet and four inches. Parapets on either side which also extend beyond the flat roof are
8 approximately twenty-five feet and eight inches. The proposal does comply with the height
9 requirements of the CA zone.
10 With regard to tree retention, I'd like to refer now to Exhibit Dumber 5. There are ninty-
11 nine trees existing onsite. The applicant is proposing to remove approximately fifteen trees.
12 Staff has relayed to the applicant that the retention of existing mature vegetation onsite should be
U retained as much as possible. Staff has found that the applicant has complied with Staffs
14 request to retain vegetation. As a result of the retention of the vegetation, to address some of the
15 questions you had earlier, it was challenging at best to re -organize or re -stripe the existing
16 parking layout for the existing stalls, therefore the spacing for the landscape islands could not be
17 reorganized_
18 HEARING EXAMINER: New parking will meet current code conditions, though?
19 TTEAMQNS: Correct. Referring to Exhibit Number 4, the applicant's
20 landscape plan, the CA zone requires a ten foot landscape strip along all street frontages. The
21 applicant has proposed to enhance existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter of
22 the site. Approximately fifty-five feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Avenue
23 as well as twenty feet of landscaping along Southwest 7�h Street. The proposal complies with
PAGE 9
I landscaping —.the landscaping widths of the CA.zone.
2 HEARING EXANMr ER: What about the landscaping within the parking? They
3 obviously have a range of parking between six hundred and something and the amount they are
4 providing of seven hundred and forty-five. Couldn't more landscaping be introduced into the
5 existing parking lot? What's the separation? Is it thirty-six or thirty- I can't remember right now
6 (inaudible) -
7 TMMONS: They are required to have intervening landscaping every
8 sixth parking stalls and the applicant has provided that within the new parking area. As
9 mentioned before; to retain existing vegetation or mature vegetation on the site, it was
10 challenging to reorganize the existing parking lot layout with respect to interior parking.
I I landscaping, the applicant is required to provide thirty-five feet — square feet -- of landscaping for
12 each parking stall. The applicant is proposing seven hundred and forty-five parking stalls which
13 approximately requires the applicant to provide twenty-six thousand square feet in landscaping in
14 the interior of the site. The applicant is proposing thirty thousand square feet (inaudible) —
15 HEARLKG EXA.N NER: Well, I realize that — but I guess looking at this plan just at
16 the northern end of the building, if you started moving to the east into the parking area — well,
17 east of the building — yeah — in that area there. Couldn't we eliminate a couple of parking stalls
18 and put additional landscaping in — I mean, that's not hard to conform to that policy — they could
19 save the mature landscaping in the existing islands or, you know, isle areas and remove two spots
20 or four spots and increase landscaping?
21 TEVEMONS: Well, something that we wanted to do was make it so that —
22 or Staff wanted to do — was make it so that the landscaping that is provided onsite actually
23 enhanced or buffered the landscaping so what we tried to do is get the applicant to put the
PAGE 10
I landscaping --- as much landscaping as possible on the perimeter of the site and that's how we
.2 achieved a fifty-five foot landscape width along Rainier Avenue South and Southwest 7t' Street,
3 a twenty foot landscape strip there.
4 HEARING EXAMINER: But breaking up asphalt in the, you know, large -- and it is a
5 large parking lot —
6 TIMMONS: It is.
7 HEARING EXAMINER: It seems like it miglxt be also appropriate to accomplish.
8 TlVLMi ONS: well, I will let the applicant speak to whether or not that is
9 possible.
10 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Obviously, there would be a trade off. Parking
11 stalls would have to be lost if you wanted to try increasing the landscaping in the sea of asphalt.
12 TEVLMONS: Based on Staff recommendation, we just thought that the
13 perimeter landscaping was sufficient and that it would buffer the parking lot sufficiently. With
14 regard to the parking analysis, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of six hundred
15 parking stalls and a maximum of seven hundred and fifty-one parking stalls. The applicant has
16 proposed seven hundred and forty --five of which six hundred and eighteen are existing. As
17 mentioned before, the hundred and twenty-seven stalls would comply with the new — with
18 dimensional requirements of the Code however the existing stalls do not comply with
19 dimensional requirements. However, as the situation is existing, Staff found that there was no
20 need to require a parking modification.
21 The applicant has applied for a parking modif — or a refuse modification — I'm sorry — in
22 order to reduce the refuse area from fifteen hundred square feet to thirty cubic yards. The
23 modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor which has been
PAGE 11
I engineered for high volurne usage. The appeal period for this modification ended on April 161
2 and no appeals were filed.
3 HEARING EXAMINER: Any trial period to make sure this new equipment works
4 appropriately and provides the amount of recycling refuse that's need for the site?
5 TMMONS: Staff has not at this time recommended a trial period.
6 FFARING EXAMDJER: Okay.
7 T /IMONS: The applicant did not provide screening detail for that
S refuse and recycle area, therefore, Staff is recommending as a condition of approval, the
9 applicant provide screening detail which is compliant with the refuse and recycle standards as
10 well as the design standards of the Renton use code. As for the site plan review analysis, Staff
11 does anticipate adverse impacts to surrounding properties or the site due to the scale of the site.
12 The structure would not take up more than a quarter of the proposed — or the resulting site after
I3 the short plat. Expansions are confined to the same general area as you see before you —just to
14 the northern portion of the existing retail store and then slight,additions or small additions to the
15 eastern portion of the store. Staff has found that the proposed expansion would not affect the
16 compatibility with the existing uses — with existing use and surrounding uses of the site_
17 However, it is challenging to get a large, big -box retail facility to be compatible with smaller
18 retail structures which surround the site. The applicant has proposed several architectural
19 elements along the eastern facade — referring back to Exhibit Number 6 — these elements include
20 canopies, extended parapets, clerestory windows — there is a large planter box that you see at the
21 center of the elevation with an iconic tree as well as benches and smaller human scale elements
22 along the front fagade.
23 HEARING EXAMINER: I liked, an iconic tree —
PAGE 12
I . TIMMONS: Let's see --- the elements along with increased setbacks as
2 well as varying roof heights divide the fagade into smaller increments which bring relativity to
3 the smaller structures that surround the site. The human scale elements along with the fagade
4 treatments on the northern elevation will be discussed when I get to the design review. I would
5 also like to note that Staff has received several letters as well as a petition, including several
6 signatures, demonstrating community support for the proposed expansion. Conservation of area -
7 wide property values are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project. And
8 if I could refer back to Exhibit Number 3, the site plan, as part of the site plan review, Staff
9 looked at the efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation. As mentioned before, the access
10 would remain the same for the proposed — or for the proposal. The applicant has provided an
I 1 efficient layout with regard to parking. All parking stalls will be ninety degree angles. There are
12 existing pedestrian — or one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east
13 elevation to Rainier Avenue South. The applicant is proposing to increase the width of that
14 pedestrian corridor as well as enhance it with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian
15 connection is being proposed from the northern portion of the structure to Southwest 7t` Street.
16 The applicant, in term of light and air, the applicant is proposing three to five additional parking
17 lot lighting poles with a height of forty feet and this is in order to match the existing lights that
18 are onsite and surrounding properties. While this exceeds the limit of twenty-five feet, Staff
19 would support additional light poles in order to maintain a site cohesiveness as lona as lighting
20 does not spill over onto adjacent. properties_ Staff—
21 HEARING EXAMINER: I guess I have to ask — can we shrink all the ones that are
22 there rather than increasing three that don't comply with code?
23 TEVEMNS: I will let Kayren Kittrick speak to the Iighting.
PAGE 13
1 HEARING EXAMINER: I mean, it's supposed to comply with Code and we can
2 maintain consistency across the site if we shrink the ones that don't comply with. Code, rather
3 than allowing new ones that don't comply with Code.
4 TDIMONS: Well, that is in the Hearing Examiner's purview, however,
5 there are several more than three to five poles existing so they are legally non -conforming and
6 there wouldn't be more than a fifty percent increase so. _. Staff has recommended as a condition
7 of approval that the applicant provide a lighting plan depicting both existing and new lights
8 conforming with - the new lights - conforming with the spill over requirements of the Renton
9 Municipal Code, In terms of noise, potential short term impacts are anticipated that would
10 normally be associated with the construction of additions for this project, however, the applicant
11 has provided a geotechnical report where the use of pipe piling was mentioned — noise and
12 vibration impacts can be associated with pipe pile driving, however, the environmental review
13 committee has issued a SEPA mitigation measure stating if pipe piles are used to support the
14 proposed structure, the applicant will be required to provide a noise and vibration study prior to
15 construction permit approval.
16 HEARING EXAMINER: Again, there's not much residential development in this
17 immediate area?
18 TIMMONS- Correct. It would just be impacts to commercial.
19 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
20 TI1vIMONS: In terns of public services, there are adequate public
21 facilities serving the site. With regard to drainage, the applicant has submitted a technical
22 infonnation report stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than 0.5 cubic
23 feet per second, therefore the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. However,
PAGE 14
I additional water quality treatment has been provided in the form of a new bioswale which is just
2 north of the expanded parking lot area.
3 The proposal is not expected to cause deterioration or blight. With regard to the design
4 district standards, the applicant is located within the design district D, as in David, which
5 includes a minimum design standard that are to be met and if they cannot be met, the applicant
6 must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the Code The proposal complies with the Urban
7 Design. District as long as conditions of approval have been met..
8 With regard to site design, if 1 could refer back to Exhibit Number 6 - the eastern and
9 western elevations — the proposed elevations meet the site design and building location minimum
10 standards with the exception of refuse and recycle elevations. Staff has already recommended
I I that the applicant provide screening detail for the refuse and recycle. The proposal does not
12 comply with the minimum standards for parking and vehicular access, mainly due to the location
13 of existing surface parking and that is because it is located in between the building and the street
14 referring back to — this is actually Exhibit Number 4. However, the situation is existing and the
15 applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot through the use of
16 landscaping, mainly accomplished through the retention and enhancement of existing
17 landscaping as well as the enhanced landscaping along Rainier Avenue and Southwest 7`h Street.
18 The proposal does comply with the minimum standards for all minimum standards within the
19 pedestrian environment.
20 With respect to landscaping, the applicant has met most of the minimum design standards
21 as long as the landscaping maintenance (inaudible) device is provided as well as an irrigation
22 plan. Staff has recommended both the (inaudible) device and an .irrigation plan be submitted.
23 There is also a requirement to plant one tree per every six parking stalls which cannot be
PAGE 15
I complied with for existing parking stalls due to the retention of existing vegetation however all
2 new stalls would be planned — would have landscaping planted at every intervening sixth stall.
3 With regard to architecture — referring back to Exhibit Number 6 — the applicant has
4 found —or Staff has found that the applicant has provided a very creative design with respect to
5 the front elevations of the store. Many of the minimum standards for building architecture and
6 design were still not met. Staff only Iooked at the two street -facing elevations in that the other
7 elevations were not being altered. Specifically, the building cannot be modulated every forty
8 feet. Blank walls were provided in the public realm as well as seventy-five percent of the front
-9 elevation did not consist of transparent windows. Finally, it was not clear whether or not the
10 color of rooftop equipment would match the color of the exposed roof. Staff has recommended
11 as a condition of approval that the applicant match the rooftop equipment with the exposed
12 portions of the roof. As for building architecture, there are many limitations based on the need to
13 alter an existing structure therefore Staff has found that the intent for the front elevation has been
14 met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of a human scale element and while
15 there are pedestrian amenities provided within a plaza area located just south of the north
16 entrance, Staff has found that additional elements could be provided in that area so Staff is
17 recommending as a conditional of approval the applicant provide additional human scale
18 elements. While there are many ways to achieve this human scale character, Staff would not like
19 to limit the options but highly recommends the applicant either provide artwork, additional
20 glazing or landscaping or some type of planter box just to enhance human scale character of that.
- 21 area. As for the other street -facing facade which is the northern elevation — and this is Exhibit
22 Number 7 — proposed treatments appear to be very uniform in nature and do not do much to
23 break up the monotony of that facade, therefore Staff is recommending as a condition of
PAGE 16
1 approval that the applicant provide revised elevations with additional elements that could either
2 enhance the pilaster elements provided or replace them all together. Finally, Staff is
3 recommending the applicant provide a building materials and colors board in order to ensure that
4 quality materials have been provided.
5 In summary, Staff recommends approval of the Wal-Mart expansion with ten conditions.
6 Would you like me to list them?
7 HEARING EXAMINER: Why don't you do that. You don't have to read there all in
8 detail but sort of summarize what they require.
9 TIMMONS: The applicant is — oh, I'm sorry — Staff is recommending
10 that the applicant comply with all six mitigation measures issued by the Environmental Review
I 1 Committee; the applicant will be required to record the short plat or alternatively depict lot lines
12 as they are when building permits come in; screening detail for the refuse and recycle area shall
13 be provided; Condition Number 4, the applicant will require to provide a lighting plan; Condition
14 Number 5, the applicant will be required to provide a maintenance (inaudible) devise; Condition
15 Number 6, the applicant will be required to provide a irrigation plan; Exhibit Number 7, revised
16 elevation shall be provided for the northern facade which depict alternative methods to mask and
17 treat the facade, Condition Number 8, revised elevations for the eastern facade shall be provided
18 which include a human scale or additional human scale elements; Condition Number 9, rooftop
19 equipment shall match the color of the exposed portions of the roof; and then finally, Condition
20 Number 10, a materials and colors board shall be provided.
21 HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you. The applicant or representative?
22 McCULLOUGH: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. My name is lack McCullough.
23 My address is 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220, Seattle, Washington, 99104.
PAGE 17
I HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you.
2 McCULLQUGH: Thank you. I'm here today on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores,
3 Incorporated, and PacLand Engineering, the applicant. Just we have very brief presentation. I'll
4 outline what that will be for you today. I'll say at the outset there is a certain element of Ground
5 Hog Day to these proceedings — thinking of the Bill Murray film — I think it was sixteen years
6 ago that we were not here but in the old City Hall working on the site plan approval for the
7 existing store out here and in the time since Wal-Mart has looked a number of different ways of
8 updating and expanding this store. It is a tight site, given the size of the store and the
9 configuration of the roads and then the other uses there that and the Bonnell family ownership.
10 And one time we were looking at a much larger; more significant extension - maybe involving a
11parking garage, this sort of thing; couldn't really make it work in a way that made sense on the
12 site, given an existing parking layout and such and so what you see today what we think is kind
13 of the right sized approach to finding a way to expand the store, to update the elevations, to bring
14 a broader product mix to the store, and to provide something that updates this store with respect
15 to the City's design cruidelines. So, today we're going to have Jeff Chambers from PacLand
16. Engineers come up and talk about this site, not duplicate the testimony already that you have
17 heard but to try to focus in on some of the questions the Examiner has asked_ I think you will
18 find that with respect to landscaping, we tend to see this not so much as a sea of asphalt but
19 maybe a series of interconnected bays of asphalt across the site —
20 HEARING EXAMINER: Glass half full — half empty.
21 McCU'LLQUGH: Yeah, there you go. Thank you, Mr. Examiner.
22 HEARING EXAMINER: It's hard to not call a sea of asphalt, a sea of asphalt;
23 frankly. There is a lot of asphalt out there.
PAGE 18
I McCULrLOUGH: Yes. So, as Mr. Chambers will explain, there has been a lot
2 of attention paid to the planters out -- the planting areas -- and in fact some of them have bee
3 expanded in size rather than interposing additional planting islands here. The parking
4 requirements of the Code, as the Examiner knows, create a range within which the project has to
fall and, you know, Wal-Mart has experience with nearly four thousand stores domestically here
6 and has a pretty good idea of what is parking — its actual parking demands are, so really we come
7 at this two ways. One is looking at Code compliance and this project complies. But we also
S have to look at parking from an actual demand point of view because what kind of parking based
9 on experience across the country and experience with this store is going to be expected at this
10 location and the seven hundred and forty-five stalls that are proposed in the site are really -- the
11 applicant believes necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to support this
12 facility and to make sure that we don't have impacts on adjoining uses and such.
13 So, the -- Mr. Chambers will also talk a little bit about the refuse areas and the nature of
14 the equipment which the company is familiar — it's used in other locations — so we can get that
15 on the record. Talk about the lighting as well. It's important since we're not touching most of
16 the parking field that we — the goal of this project is to leave it as it is; try to enhance it in some
17 particular ways but leave those lighting standards. if you reduce the height of lighting standards,
18 what happens, as Mr. Chambers will explain, is that you end up then having to - in order to
19 achieve safe lighting levels in the parking lot, you have to increase by a significant factor the
20 number of lighting standards in the parking field and so it — you end up with much more
21 cluttered look and you end up really having to redo the entire parking field to accomplish that.
22 So, we will also have a presentation on the architectural side just to walk through the elevations,
23 answer any questions — the Staff has suggested conditions that would have us come back and
PAGE 19
I look at some additional design treatment on the east facade and the north facade and here — for
2 the record— I'll just say we endorse and support those conditions. We'll accept them and believe
3 that based on our working relationship with the City that we'll have no problem coming to a
4 favorable and mutually acceptable understanding there. So, I'll ask Jeff Chambers to come up
5 and, Mr. Chambers, you've been sworn in.
6 CHAMBERS: Jeff Chambers, PacLand, C -H -A -M -B -E -R -S, 1505
7 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 305, Seattle, Washington, 98109.
S HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you.
9 CHAMBERS: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. As Mr. McCullough had stated,
10 I would like to just kind of explain a few of the items that you brought up in discussion. First of
11 all, with the landscaping, when we had discussions with Staff, they expressed interest in
12 definitely keeping as many of the mature tees as possible on the site. What we also did at the
13 time was we have an existing walkway that's on the site that's . approximately about a four —
14 three or four foot sidewalk that extends through the middle of the site and as we're looking at
15 Exhibit 4 -- we actually widen that out — created some compact stalls in those locations — the
16 landscape islands went from approximately six feet wide to approximately twelve feet wide so
17 rather than adding additional islands in the site - and because when you start to add islands,
18 you're really constrained by stall size — typically on retail, you're going to have next to the
19 islands, you're going to put two foot walkways so people can get in and out of their cars a little
20 easier — rather than constraining the new islands that we want to put in down to about four foot
21 wide with six inch curbs, we agreed with Staff to go ahead and expand the existing islands to
22 about anywhere between ten and twelve feet wide. So we've met the intent of the Code of the
23 thirty-five square foot total per stall. If we went down to the one landscape island every six
PAGE 20
1 stalls, we would have gotten rid of quite a few of the — we would have gotten rid of a quite few
2 of the existing mature trees which again was something that Staff had expressed interest in not
3 having happen. As Ms_ Timmons stated; we did add landscaping along Hardy so we lost some
4 stalls when we added the landscape islands out along Hardy and we also lost some land -- some
5 islands — or some parking stalls when we added the landscaping out on 7t!', which was part of the
6 request of Staff_ Do you have any questions at this point about the landscaping, or - ?
7 HEARING EXAM NER: No, I'll let you finish your presentation.
8 CHAMBERS: Okay. As far as the trash compactor — it's pretty standard
9 on large retail buildings - Wal -Marts, Costco's, Targets — they use the trash compactor. In
10 addition to the trash compactor what we also have is a bale and pallet area that we've designed
11 out here, up near the Columbia Bank which will be a CMU wall integral to the building which
12 does allow the storage of the recyclables. So that does — that is part of what helps us reduce the
13 trash storage but again, the compactor — the way it is designed — it's gpicaI of pretty much all
14 retail sites that are of this size. As Mr. McCullough had referenced, the lighting — one thing, you
15 know, when we have site that has existing forty foot lights — with forty foot lights you get a
16 much uniform lighting level across the site. The industry standard is to try have parking areas
17 around four foot-candles; front of store areas, around ten foot-candles. When you have forty foot
18 lights spaced approximately a hundred to a hundred and fifty feet apart, you get that uniformity
19 in the parking lot_ You don't get large increases and decreases in foot-candles in the parking lot.
20 What we have found is that when we go to twenty-five foot lights - the spacing of those lights
21 end up about fifty feet apart — the uniformity of the lighting goes from one foot-candle to about
22 eight or nine foot-candles throughout the parking lot, and actually at that point, almost .creates
23 more of an safety concern with lighting being too bright and then going too dark when you have
PAGE 21
I I pedestrians walking around in the parking lot. So, not to mention, you know, again, you double
2 the number of lighting standards which when you reduce the height of the lights; it changes your
j 3 circuitry; adds a lot more conduit to the parking lot, a lot more circuits to the parking lot, again,
4 we're trying_ to minimize the amount of work we are doing in this parking lot because we're
5 keeping the store open as the expansion is going on —
6 HEARING EXAMINER: So, I guess (inaudible) should suggest Renton change its
7 Code because it's twenty, twenty-five foot standards and they create more pools of Iight and
8 shadow than —
9 CHAMBERS: We understand the intent to reduce height and — but again,
10 uniformity -wise, when you go to lower lights —
i
I1 HEARING EXAIIV R: Yeah, the lights are almost twice as tall as the building—
i
12 CHAMBERS: - creates a lot of problems with bright spots and dark spots
i
13 in a parkin& lot. But again, in this site, we are only adding three or four Iights and we're only —
14 we're really adding them just to the north and where the existing restaurant, BiIIy McHaIes, was
15 located. I think that's about all I have got. I don't think I've got anything else. If you have any
16 questions or —
17 McCULLOUGH: Could I ask Mr. Chambers a question really quick just to
1$ clarify, Mr. Examiner?
19 HEARING EXAMINER: Go ahead.
20 McCULLOUGH: I don't think you have the figures but you mentioned. that
21 you increased the size — proposed to increase the size of the islands in the existing parking lot.
22 Do you have an estimate of what percentage -wise, what that represents in terms of —just of the
23 islands — increased landscape area within the existing parking lot?
PAGE 22
I
HEARING EXAMINER:
Why don't you just say they'll be bigger.
2
CHAMBERS:
Yeah, they'll be bigger -W I would have to -
3
McCULLOUGH:
Thank you.
4
CHAMBERS:
- approximately —
5
HEARING EXAMINER:
From the look on his face, too much speculation is going to
6
be necessary.
7
CHAMFERS:
Yeah, I would say approximately it adds about forty
8
percent more landscaping in the parking
lot just by doubling the island size.
9
HEARING EXAMINER:
Okay. Anything — and again, I know these are the backs of
10
the buildings — but one never knows what's going to happen. On the south and west fagade, any
11
kind of bas relief or something else
that could be — or more painting, I guess, the facades - if you
12
want to show the — maybe a little
more colored relief or painting —
13
FEMALE VOICE:
(Inaudible) —
14
CHAMBERS:.
Yeah, I think I will leave that to —
15
HEARING EXAMINER:
Oh, someone else is —that's - ?
16
CHAMBERS:
- the architect who will get up and describe the elevations.
17
HEARING EXAMINER.
Okay.
is
CHAMBERS:
There's no more questions?
19
HEARING EXAMINER:
I don't think so. Thank you.
20
CHAMBERS:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Examiner.
21
HEARING EXAMINER:
I was jumping ahead a witness, I guess.
22
McC[ TLLOUGH:
It's okay. This is Mr. McCullough again. So next we
23
would like to hear from Mr. Usunobun Osage, who is the design architect for this project and he
PAGE 23
I can just talk about the project and look at the questions as you've raised them.
2 HEARING EXAMINER.- And so my secretary doesn't get upset afterward, I will ask
i
3 you to spell both the first name and the last name.
4 OSAGIE: I intend to do so. Good morning.
5 HEARING EXANf NER: Thank you.
I
6 OSAGIE: My naive is Usunobun Osage. The first name is spelled U-
7 S -U -N -O -B -U -N and the last name is O -S -A -G -I -E. And I'm with harry D. Craighead
8 Architect.
9 HEARING EXANflNER: Thank you.
10 OSAGIE: And my address is 211 North Record Street, Suite 222,
i
11 Dallas, Texas, zip code is 75202.
12 HEARNG EXAMINER: Can I ask you to repeat the street and maybe spell it
i
13 because I didn't quite hear it?
14 OSAGIE: Record.
17 HEARING EXANIINER: Record? R -E -C -O -R -D?
16 OSAGIE. Yes, sir.
17 HEARING EXANE NER: Thank you.
18 OSAGIE: Let me use this opportunity thank the Planning Staff for the
19 hard work they have put in working with us to get the elevation to where we are today and to
20 answer your question right off yes, we can look at the west fagade and add additional colors
21 there as necessary owing to the fact it's all existing wall and we are not intending to do much
22 back there but we can add, you know, add additional colors in the rear.
23 And with that, I will jump into the staff recommendations. The first item, just to touch
PAGE 24
I back on the refuse and recycling area, we intend to comply with the screening requirements and
2 provide gates and a roof for the compactor area. The design for this area would add — allow us to
3 leave a portion of the roof for ventilation, so gust for the record, that's the design that we are
4 proposing and would like to have that for the record so there are no concerns when the building
5 plans still coming in.
b The other item — the elevation — again, we will continue to work with planning Staff to
7 come up with a workable resolution with regard to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities
8 and come up with a workable solution that will make everybody happy, essentially. We are
9 dealing with existing walls along the front wall there — a portion of the wall we are resealing.
10 The store stays open the entire time we are expanding the store so that also poses limitation on
11' which wall we can rebuild and not rebuild but we intend to work with Staff to come up with a
12 workable solution.
13 With regard to the right elevation, again, we agree with Staff recommendation and --
14 HEARING EXAMINER: Do you want to change the exhibit then? Which one we're
5 talkino a�nait it'c —
16
FEMALE VOICE:
17
HEARING EXAMINER:
18
FEMALE VOICE:
19
HEARING EXAMINER:
20
OSAGIE:
21
HEARING EXA.N MER:
22
FEMALE VOICE:
23
OSAGIE:
I think he (inaudible) information —
Oh, it is this one? I thought it was —
The (inaudible) —
Oh, the bottom -
Yes, that's what it's of—
Okay.
(Inaudible) elevation?
Yeah, the pilaster treatments — which is the northern --
PAGE 25
I yeah, the north elevation. Again, we will continue to meet with the planning Staff and come up
2 with an architectural elements that is pleasing to the City and we also make everybody happy.
3 That's all if you don't have any other questions or concerns. I will take my seat.
4 HEARLNG EXAMINER: 1 don't know if this is question for you or maybe it was the
5 prior gentleman — the two entrances, is the store going to sort of be divided into food products
6 and I guess, household or clothing?
7 OSAGIE: Yes, the two entrances are actually designed as a
S directional access to the store, if you were coming into the store for primarily groceries product,
9 you would enter in the far left— you would enter through this vestibule.
10 HEARING EXAMIN-.R-. The south entrance?
11 OSAGIE: Yes. And if you were corning in for general merchandise
12 and that is mainly the bulk of your shopping experience then you would go in through the north
13 entrance.
14 HEARLNG EXAMINER: Thank you.
15 OSAGIE: Thank you.
16 McCULLOUGH: Mr. Examiner, Mr. McCullough, and that concludes our
17 presentation. I would just say in conclusion that our goal is to take an existirig facility that is
18 non -conforming in some respects to not sit on our hands as it were there, we've tried to leave the
19 — for example, the non -conforming parking field in the front better than we found it, but the
20 Code doesn't require us to bring it into full conformance now and so we've worked with Stair
21 withrespect to increasing landscaping within the parking field and also trying to increase
22 landscaping buffering at the perimeter of the site where it meets the.street property lines as a way
23 to enhance this. Likewise. I think as you see in the store elevations, any of them that are being
PAGE 26
i
1 touched or expanded, we're devoting a great deal of resources to, in terms of upgrading and
2 updating and so we again endorse the recommendations of Staff here and ask you to approve the
3 site plan approval that is before with the conditions that are recommended.
4 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Thank you.
5 MCCULLOUGH: Thank you.
6 HEARING EXA 41NER: Is there further testimony in support of the application? Is
7 there testimony in opposition to the application from anybody? And it looks like it is mostly the
8 applicant's team here. Ms. Kittrick, anything? Storm drainage, traffic, other issues that you're
9 interested in?
10 KITTRICK: Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development
11 & Development Services. Actually, most of that was already covered under the short plat. Most
12 of that — all of the issues about storm, etcetera, have been worked out to pretty much our
13 satisfaction subject to final review and permitting -- I'll put it that way. The question about the
14 parking lot lighting in not usually under my purview.
15 HEARENG EXAMINER: I didn't think so.
16 KITTRICK: I'rn used to dealing with the fact that you are supposed to —
17 and I relieve at the time the Wal-Mart was originally built — it was subject to the foot-candles
18 being the foot-candle level that was throughout the City at the time. I was trying to find out
19 when this twenty-five foot height came into being. It was mostly a matter of, indeed, as the
20 gentleman already talked about, a nice even distribution of light. I'm in agreement with the Staff
21 request for a lighting plan, or a lighting design that proves that their light doesn't wander off the
22 property. We are somewhat concerned about excess lighting on the drainage swale that's on the
23 west, I believe — yes, it was on the west. That was a discussion that we've had previously and I
PAGE 27
l don't want that increased. That's just — it can't interfere with the function —
I
j 2 VOICE: The existing bioswale.
3 KI'TTRICK: - the existing bioswale_ Well, and even the new one to a
4 certain degree. So, that's the only thing that I had on it. The forty foot — it probably looks like,
5 yes, it may need a modification but that would be thi ouch Development Services anyway.
6 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Thank you_ Let the record reflect there's nobody
7 else (inaudible), Ms. Titnmons, anything to add at this point? Thank you for coming this
$ morning. And we'll get all the new exhibits, including the new one for the short plat. Thank
9 you.
10 [TRANSCRIBER's NOTE: END OF PROCEEDING]
11
12 '
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
73
PAGE 28
OFFICE O'F TJiE HEARING EXA1\41NER.
FOR TIIE_Cll'y DF RENTON
Pel RF; EXPANSION
SITE -PLAN APPROVAL
FILL, -NO. 1 LUA VM09, ECF, SA -A
TRAN&CUIPT OF PROCR,EDINGS
CITY Or RENTON PLANNING D.,E.V,.E-LO,.PMF-NT-'COMM.E'f7E"E
THU.R-SDAY,,,AUGU,ST'l�2,.2'0.10.
RENTTOK WASHINQ17() N;
APPEARANCES:
Presiding: CHAIR TERRI BRIERE. KING,.PAR,,KER & RICH ZWICKER,
For tk App6ldnt CLAUMA NEWKAN
FO ;the Ap c
plicant IACK,'M. CULO-QGH
FpTDcve]opmciit -S csROCALE TIME ONS
-CERTIFICATI(iNbF TRANSCRIBER
11 Kristina Wescott—prepared the attached transcfiptftotn CD rec=ordings of the above-4denlipled
pmcecding. . I:cWtifv under penalV of perjury. under -the la -.w. -.s of to State of Washington ington �that the art-act.yed
is. , g true, cQTmA and complete t . rAnscriptof those prpceedlifigs to the best of-rny ability..
DATED tfii�A-t day of2= LL 20o.
ki-sfina. Wescott
32079 Srate,]Hwy 1:04
PO Box,255
Port Gambie WA 98364
Good afternoon, everyone. We're — let's get started. My
2 name is Tem Briere, I'm chair of the Planning Development Committee, and King Parker is vice
3 chair on my left, and Rich Zwicker, who is a member, and on my right is the City attorney, Larry
4 Warren. And today we are going to be hearing an appeal for the Wal-Mart expansion plans. So
5 if I could have Staff start and then we'll have the appellant. So if you could give us a summary
6 of what's going on. Thank you.
7 TEVIMONS: Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. For the
8 record, my name is Rocale Timmons. I am an Associate Planner representing the Department of
9 Community and Economic Development and I will be presenting a very brief presentation on the
IQ applicant's proposal as well as Staffs recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Including in
11 my presentation are two exhibits that were entered into the record as part of the pubic hearing —
12 Exhibits 3 and 6 — the site plan and the front and rear elevations of the proposed structure.
13 Before you on the overhead is the site plan depicting a 13.6 acre site with an approximately one
14 hundred and thirty-five thousand square foot structure that is currently the existing Wal-Mart
15 facility. Along with the existing facility are associated improvements such as parking and
16 landscaping. The applicant is proposing a sixteen thousand square foot addition to the east and
17 then two vestibules along — I'm sorry — to the north and then two vestibules located on the
18 eastern facade of the existing structure. Also associated with the proposed expansion is a
19 reduction of four thousand square feet for the garden center as well as an increase in parking as
20 well as architectural, pedestrian landscaping and infrastructure improvements.
21 The project is located within our commercial arterial and industrial medium zoning
22 designations however, as a majority of the portion of the site is located in the commercial arterial
23 zoning designation, those are the standards that were applicable for Staff s review. Specifically,
PAGE I
I the CA zone requires a ten foot. minirnum, front yard setback and also requires a maximum fifteen
2 front yard setback. However, within the City's Code, there is an allowance for an increase in the
3 maximum setback if certain criteria can be met. To describe that criteria briefly, the project
4 would need to include enhanced pedestrian connections, as well as distinctive architecture along
5. the front fagade, mitigation of the visual dominance of a parking lot and then mitigation of
6 conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The applicant has proposed the retention and
7 enhancement of existing landscaping onsite, mainly throughout the parking area to the east of the
8 existing structure. Additionally, they've enhanced the front the frontage landscaping along
9 Rainier Avenue and Hardy Avenue Southwest in the amount of fifty-five feet in width as well as
10 there is a twenty foot width of landscaping provided along Southwest 7, Street. There is an
11 internal pedestrian connection that connects the eastern facade of the structure to Rainier Avenue
12 South and that pedestrian connection is also being proposed to be enhanced along with — or,
13 which would include a widening of the pedestrian connection as well as pedestrian lighting. The
14 applicant has also proposed pedestrian amenities along the eastern fagade which include a
15 pedestrian plaza, pedestrian -scale lighting and then benches as well.
16 And then if I could refer to Exhibit Number 6, which depicts the eastern fagade — kind of
17 challenging to see on the overread — the applicant has proposed several architectural elements
18 along this fagade which were used to distinguish two new building entrances. Elements include
19 clerestory windows, extending parapets, canopies, two vestibule locations located at the
20 entrance, ornamental lighting and then a large planter box in the center with an iconic tree.
21 These elements along with the increased setbacks ironically divide the building's mass into
22 increments that increase the relativity to the street as well as to surrounding structures beyond
23 what's existing. Based on the proposal, along with conditions of approval, Staff found that the
PAGE 2
I applicant complied with the criteria to increase the maximum setback of the zone. Additionally,
2 the reviewing official may also modify the maximum setback requirement if the physical site
3 constraints can cause the setback requirement to not be met. And given the existing
4 improvements reasonably preclude the maximum setback requirement from being met, and that
5 it would take more than six hundred linear feet of expansion to comply, the maximum setback
6 requirement was modified. This proposal is also located within Design District D, which
7 includes a minimum design standards that are to be met and if those standards can't be met, the
8 applicant must demonstrate how the intent of the Code must be met.
9 From Staff's perspective, there are many aesthetic elements provided, as I just
10 mentioned, which are part of a modest expansion to a relatively large structure and the applicant
11 is obviously operating with constraints due to the siting of the existing facility so in conclusion,
12 Staff found the building to be well-designed with proposed pedestrian, landscaping, and
13 infrastructure improvements. We found that the proposal enhanced the building's existing
14 appearance as well as the site's functionality and the reviewing official, the City's Hearing
15 Examiner, concurred with Staff recommendation and found that while the applicant's proposal
16 doesn't comply with the prescriptive standards of the Design District, it does comply with the
17 intent therefore satisfying the design district requirements. And that's all, unless you have any
18 questions of me.
19 BRIERE: Questions? Mr. .wicker? Mr. Parker:'
20 MALE VOICES: No.
21 BRIER)✓; All right. Thank you very much, Rocale. All right, next if
22 we could hear from the appellant
23 NEWMAN: Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My
PAGE 3
I name is Claudia Newman and I'm the attorney for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth and
2 thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I appreciate it. I'll try to brief. What I am
3 going — I have been told that you have reviewed the materials and I'm just doing a quick
4 summary of what you've seen. The reason we have appealed this Wal-Mart expansion is that it
5 is an expansion of — an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. It's a violation of the
6 maximum setback requirement and there are many violations of the design regulations. And
7 there are also improper estimates of the traffic generation of the proposal_ And I want to start
8 just focused on the non -conforming issue because that's the most straightforward and I think
9 pretty dramatic issue here that I was very surprised to see an approval because I think it is rather
10 clear cut that this is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. RMC 4-10-050 states that a
11 non -conforming structure shall not be enlarged unless the enlargement is conforming. And so
12 the Renton. Code states that you cannot expand your non -conforming structure unless it will
13 bring it into conformance. And there's no dispute here that the facility is being expanded. The
14 project will expand the existing Wal-Mart from approximately one hundred and thirty-four
15 thousand square feet to one hundred and fifty thousand square feet_ And the enlargement is not
16 conforming. The enlargement violates the maximum frontage setback requirement of fifteen feet
17 — that's in the Heariva Examiner's decision — he states that as such. And the proposal will be
18 setback approximately five hundred and fifty-five feet from the frontage which was defined as
19 Hardy Avenue and Rainier Avenue South. This is substantial legal error. This is clearly a
20 violation of the Code. There's also the violation just on its own of the maximum frontage
21 setback that justifies the denial. I have heard for the first time, I believe, the Staff's
22 recommendation based on the criteria that allows for an exception to the maximum setback. I
23 want to point out that that, as far as I can see, was not reviewed by the Examiner. The Examiner
PAGE 4
I doesn't include that consideration in his opinion and so any exception to the front -back criteria —
2 this is new discussion that's happening here tonight.
3 The applicant and the Examiner's response to the arguments that I just made are that the
4 mere fact that the design regulations apply to this project somehow excuse the proposal from
5 having to follow the other provisions in the Code. For example, a non -conforming structure can
6 expand to be non -conforming if the design regulations apply — and this is an argument that has
7 absolutely no basis in the Code. And there is no credibility to this argument. There is nothing in
8 the Code that says that — the provision that they refer to states that alterations, enlargements and
9 restorations of non -conforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050 — which is the non -
10 conforming provision --- must comply with, the design regulations. All it says is that they have to
11 comply. There is no place where they're excused from - the project - that it has to comply with
12 design regulations is excused from these other regulations. And also, I — you know — it's a .
13 really, really ironic argument, frankly, because I guess the point of it is saying, well, if we follow
14 design regulations and we're in sync with the design regulations, then we don't have to follow
15 setback requirements and we don't have to follow non-conforrnibg restrictions and what's ironic
16 about that is that Wal-Mart is not following the design regulations and the intent of the design
17 regulations are not being met by this project. In fact, this project is precisely the opposite of
18 what the City has envisioned for the future of this -area.
19 1 just want to read a little bit from the intent and goals of the design regulations. The
20 intent is to ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the
21 vision of the City of Renton can be realized for high-density urban environment so that
22 businesses enjoy visibility from ,public rights of way and to encourage pedestrian activity
23 throughout the district. To ensure visibility of businesses, establish active lively uses along
PAGE 5
i
I sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the
2 district is facilitated. To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, ensure
3 that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk in the urban character
4 of the district — so you can get the picture here — to encourage building design that is unique and
5 urban in character, comfortable on a human scale and uses appropriate building materials that are
6 suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate, to discourage franchise retail architecture — that's the
7 intent and you can start envision what we are talking about — a vibrant, walkable downtown area
8 that is pedestrian friendly, that's not oriented towards cars. And what we have here is franchise
9 architecture with an enormous parking lot in front of the store rather than having the building
10 right up within fifteen feet of the sidewalk. We have a car -oriented development that is clearly
I I more focused on people driving to the store rather than walking to the store. So, generally it's an
12 ironic statement to say, well, you know the design regulations allow us to violate the other
13 regulations in the Code when they are not meeting the design regulations in the first place.
14 And I did give quite a bit of detail in the briefing about what design regulations are not
15 being met and I just want to quickly respond to the applicant and the Examiner's response to
16 those arguments. There is an argument that the design regulations allow flexibility and they
17 allow different approach to design to meet the end goal. And that is true -- it is prescriptive
19 requirement — I mean, well, rather than performance-based, we have a prescriptive — I'm sorry,
19 we have performance-based requirement rather than prescriptive and so there is allowing some
20 sort of — they have a regulation that's required and this is the intent and the goal, and what the
21 regulations say, essentially, is you can have some flexibility in how you get to that goal but you
22 have to meet the requirement And here the requirements just simply were not met. And so the
23 flexibility isn't this option, oh, we either can follow them or not follow them — we have choice —
PAGE 6
1 the flexibility is, yes, you must follow these requirements but you may have some flexibility in
2 how to get there. And if you look at the briefing; if you look at the Bearing Examiner's decision
3 very closely, you see that they just didn't get there. They didn't get any compliance with the
4 design regulations.
5 Now, finally, with the standing issues and the exhaustion of administrative remedies, I
6 think that we've brought up some very strong issues on the merits and I think there is an attempt
7 to distract away from those by raising - challenging our ability to even raise those issues before
8 you and those attempts fail. The Renton Code is unambiguous in allowing any interested person
9 to appeal to the City Council. There is no requirement that that person have attended the public
10 hearing before the Examiner and the only reason the group did not attend the hearing is they
11 were not aware of the project until after the hearing occurred. The Washington State law — I
12 provided some case law in there that demonstrates this is true. There is a distinction between any
13 interested person versus a party to the proceeding being allowed and the Code clearly allows any
14 interested person.
15 The administrative record below does not have evidence in it about the appellants — us -
16 being aggrieved parties but that is not at issue whatsoever. On appeals, which I think most
17 attorneys recognize that when you are going up to a new court and you're filing an appellant
18 appeaL you have a right to submit evidence to show that you can get through the door to get the
19 jurisdiction of that appellate court. The information or evidence on whether or not we are an
20 aggrieved party was not even necessary before the Examiner because there is no time or
21 requirement for us submit evidence showing that we are in aggrieved party. The first time that
22 you have an need or requirement to submit evidence that you are an aggrieved party is before the
23 City Council and that's what we have done. We have submitted that adequate evidence to show.
PAGE 7
I And finally, on exhaustion, Wal-Mart argued that we had not exhausted our
2 administrative remedies because we had not attended the hearing. As I have said before, that is
3 not a requirement of the Code and also, exhaustion of administrative remedies is a judicial
4 doctrine that's created by the Washington State Superior Courts and that is a requirement that
5 before going to court, the appellant must go through the process that is set forth in the City Code
5 and that's what we are doing right now. So we are in the process of exhausting our
7 administrative remedies. We also did raise the issues before the Examiner. The idea of
8 exhaustion is not necessary procedural; there is a Washington State court case that makes it clear
9 that this is a substantive doctrine which what I mean by that is you need to have raised the issues
10 below, not necessarily attended all the hearings and so we did raise all of the issues to the
11 Hearings Examiner that we are raising to the City Council and therefore we exhausted our
12 remedies. Thank you.
13 BRIERS: Thank you. All right, next the applicant.
14 McCLZLOUGH: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the
15 committee. We had a longer presentation but I have been advised that it might be nice to keep it
r
16 brisk this afternoon so I'm going to do so.
17 BRIERE: All right. Could you just stat your name for the record?
18 McCULLOLGH: My name for the record is Jack McCullough. My address
19 is 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220, Seattle, 98144.
20 BRIERS: And you're representing the Wal-Mart?
21 McCULLOUGH: And I'm representing Wal-Mart. And we were here in
22 front of the City about seventeen years ago when first getting approval for the existing store out
23 there and happy to see now after this" period of time that we are able to bring, we hope, a better
PAGE 8
1 store design, architecture, store layout to the City.
2 There are really three issues — you are all familiar with the site and the record and have
3 read, I know, all the pleadings here — there are three issues before you: traffic, design review,
4 and the issue of the setback. I'm going to address those. Obviously, as the Council knows, you
5 have to apply the standard of review that is set forth in the Code and that is a substantial error in
6 law or fact exists or that — for legal issues — for factual issues, that there is substantial evidence in
7 the record to support the fact-finding that's below. So on traffic, counsel didn't spend time
8 addressing traffic in the opening statement but it is well, I think, addressed in the brief.
9 Obviously, the City — ERC — issued an environmental determination on this project, imposed
10 conditions as associated with the payment of impact fees on traffic which is intended under City
11 Code to fully mitigate the traffic impacts. Appellants did not appear in that proceeding, didn't
12 provide comments, didn't appear in the proceedings below and suggests now that the Council
13 should reverse this action on the basis of what's called known — in quotes — information about
14 traffic from this project. Well, you have to loom at the record. We've asked you to strike or
15 disregard the information on page 14 of the opening brief of the appellants that tries to insert this
16 extra record evidence now into the Council proceeding, it doesn't belong there. The record
17 supports the findings of the Hearing Examiner and we think that the decision on that issue should
18 be upheld.
19 On the designn issue, we just have a fundamental disagreement here. You know, the Code
20 — or the comp plan, I think, is clear. The City's land use policies are clear about dealing with
21 non -conforming issues and large issues, the community design policies and the land use policies
22 of the Code that design should be flexible and the approach to dealing with non -conforming
23 structures and uses should be flexible to try to achieve a higher degree of conformity and
,PAGE 9
I compliance as projects move forward. So, you know, I think what it boils down to in the context
2 of the design issue is one particular provision of the Code, which is not addressed by the
3 appellants but is addressed by us in our pleadings, and that is Section 4-8-100(g)(b)(2), the
4 design regulations — it says when the administrator or designee has determined that the proposed
S manner of meeting the design requirements through the guidelines, an intent is sufficient. The
6 applicant shall not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the
7 guideline that has been approved. And it goes on in the following section to describe the purpose
8 of this is to encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purpose of the design
9 regulation. So these are really — it's intended to be a living and flexible document and the
10 suggestion you've heard from appellants is that there is a prescriptive standard. You have to
11 meet the standard and then once you meet the standard you can be flexible. Well, that doesn't
12 rally make any sense. The Staff did what the Staff has always done under the design guidelines
13 since they've been enforced in Renton. They. applied them flexibly in this case and the Hearing
14 Examiner's decision supports that
15 Finally, there is the issue of this setback. I think there are two ways to look at this.
16 Under either way, it's — the project complies. One is as suggested by Staff this afternoon, that
17 you can look at the Code at Section 4-2-120�c)(15) and there is a process for applying criteria
18 that would allow the expansion of the maximum setback and those criteria would apply in this
19 case. The other which was employed by the Hearing Examiner is to look at the Urban Design
20 Overlay regulations which were intended to implement the policies established in the
21 Comprehensive flan. Now, what the appellants are saying here, again, is it's — you have an
22 inflexible set of regulations. You have to meet this standard with a non -conform structure.
23 Well, actually, if you look at the Urban Design Overlay regulations, they are expressly intended
PAGE 10
I to apply -to non -conforming structures and they are expressly intended to apply to big -box retail —
2 that's under 4-3-100(b)(1). And what appellants in their presentation to the Council, in their
3 pleadings presented to the Council, have failed to note is the clear language of Section 4-3-
4 100(b)(2), on which the Examiner relied, which said that where there are conflicts between the
design regulations of these overlay guidelines and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code,
6 which obviously includes the setback requirements, then the regulations of this section — i.e. the
7 design decision made by the Staff and upheld by the Hearing Examiner — shall prevail. So that
8 design decision in cases of dealing with non -conforming structures or big -box retail provides the
9 Staff and the Examiner an avenue by which modification to the standards can be made and the
10 expansion of non -conforming structures like this one can occur. So, it's just provision that is
1 i simply not addressed in the pleadings before that are presented by appellants and it's the one that
12 the Examiner relied on. Either that or the provision that Staff has mentioned here will support
13 that. So we think that, under the standards that you have to apply, the decision of the Examiner
14 on the site plan should be upheld. Thank you very much.
15 BRIERS: All right. Thank you. Questions?
16 ZWICKER: Ilhmmm....
17 BRIERE: Questions, Mr. Zwicker?
18 WARREN[?]: Is that a no from King?
19 PARKER: I'm thinking
20 BRIERS: He's thinking so if you would like to go ahead —
21 WARREN[?]: No, I was going to close the appeal, so I'll wait.
22 PARKER[?]: The traffic issue -- so we collect traffic mitigation fees —
23 BRIERE_ Are you asking this of Staff?
PAGE 11
I
PARKER[?]:
I know, yes, 1, am. Okay, Rich — (inaudible) —
2
TIMMONS:
Rocale Timmons for the record, Planning Division —
3
PARKER[?]:
Okay.
4
TLNIN40NS:
Traffic impact fees or mitigation fees were require as part
5
of the environmental review determination of non-significance. If that was your question that
5
you were asking.
7
PARKER[?]:
Okay, so we collect a fee and then we say, hey, it's okay
8
because we've looked it over and
(inaudible) —
9
TLMMONS:
Based on the number of trips that generated by the
10
proposed expansion.
11
PARKER.[?]:
And how do we make that determination? I mean, how
12
(inaudible) -
13
T1ONS:
They provide a traffic analysis and maybe Kayren Kittrick
14
— I'm not sure if she is in — in the
15
PARKER[?]:
She's nodding her head yes
lb
BRIERE:
She is, yes.
17
TIkvLMONS:
But she — our development services division and
IS
transportation division reviews
that analysis and then concurs or asks for supplemental
19
information and obviously it was
concurred with.
20
PARKER[?]:
So, okay, so otherwise the expanded building (inaudible)
21
and they anticipate that there will
be that many more traffic trips and we figure that out and give
22
'them a charge for it?
23
TIMMONS:
Correct.
PAGE 12
I
i
PARKER[.?]:
And then it's a-ok?
2
i
TB84ONS:
Correct_
3
PARKER[?]:
So we went through the appropriate process for that?
4
TEVIMONS:
Correct.
I
PARKER[?]:
Okay. Just on general purposes, I — the setback issue is
6
confusing to say the least, in my estimation.
however, I —
7
BRIERE
Are you asking a question?
8
PARKER[?]:
No, yeah, I'm asking — no I'm not — I'm making a
9
statement, alright?
10
BRIERE:
Okay.
11
PARKER[?]:
Never mind.
12
BRIERS:
All right.
13
PARKER[?]:
I'm not going to make any more statements.
14
BRIERE:
Do you have any more —
15
WARREN[?]:
Ask any more questions —
16
BRIERE:
Do you have any more questions?
17
WARREN[?]:
Do you have any more questions?
18
PARKER[?]:
No more questions.
19
BRIERS:
All richt.
20
WARREN[?]:
Madam Chairman, I move the appeal be closed
21
PARKER[?]:
Second.
22
BRIERS:
Okay, the appeal is closed and we'll deliberate.
23
WARREN[?]:
Now make your statements.
I
PAGE 13
I
BRIERE:
Now you can make your statements.
2
PARKER[?]:
Now I can say anything you want?
3
WARREN[?]:
Now you can say whatever you want.
4
ZWICKER:
Well, Mx. (inaudible) — you'd better not say anything
5
(inaudible) —
6
PARKER:
These attorneys they always gang up on me for some
7
reason or another.
S
ZWICKER:
One on one is gang, isn't it?
9
BRIERE:
Well, you understand that the setback is an existing issue.
10
PARKER:
That's right — I mean, it's there.
11
BRIERE:
Right. The only way they could get by that would be to
12
tear the building down and redevelop -
13
PARKER:
Right.
14
BRIERS:
- the entire parcel.
15
PARKER:
Yeah, quite frankly which isn't even reasonable in
16
estimation. I think they have given us a satisfactory explanation of how that's interlinked with
17
the design guidelines in
order to make that happen. That's all I have. I don't have any problems.
18
WARREN:
M.T. Zwicker?
19
ZWICKER:
No, I'm good. The Hearing Examiner's decision is fine.
20
BRIERE:
All right.
21
PARKER:
I'd uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
22
BRIERE:
All right and I will too. All right. So our recommendation
23
is we're going to be making a motion — or that we'll have a committee report that appears --
PAGE 14
I upholds the Hearing Examiner's decision and that will come forward to the City Council at
2 Monday's night meeting for their consideration. Okay? Thank you. Thanks to everyone.
3 [TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: END OF PROCEEDNG]
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PAGE 15
(t 8�
CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF RENTON
M E M 0 R A N D UM AUG 172012
DATE: August 16, 2012 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
TO: Rocale Timmons, CED
FROM: Jo Olson, Administrative Asst. City Attorney Office
SUBJECT: Renton Neighbors/Wa I mart
Rocale — I am sending all your files and original documents back to you that pertain to
the above mentioned case. Our department is closing our file and placing it into closed
files at this time. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either Mr.
Newsom or myself.
Thanks Jo
s
PARTIES OF RECORD
WALMART EXPANSION
Jeff Chambers y
PACLAND
1505 Westlake Avenue N Ste:
#305
Seattle, WA 98109
tel: (206) 522-9510
eml: jchambers@pacland.com
(contact)
Sharon Aiibade V
Assistant Manager
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Anapogi Toleafoa
I.C.S. Loader
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Traffaney Black %.
Department Manager -
Electronics
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Mark Goodman V
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
tel: (425) 227-0407
(party of record)
Nancy Chase 11
Department Manager
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Updated: 04/15/10
LUA10-009, -H, ECF
Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family, LLC
10047 Main Street Ste: #509
Bellevue, WA 98004
tel: (425) 453-1414
(owner / applicant)
Huy Tran %/
Assistant Manager
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Sophorn Chan
Associate
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Brandi Hansen v
Department Manager -
Automotive
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Tomasita Quinsay
I
(party of record)
William B. Carey, Jr. /
Safety Team Lead
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Jeremy Smith ✓
Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
tel; (425) 227-0407
eml: jksmith,s02516.us@wal-
mart.com
(party of record)
Luena Layapox
(party of record)
Tilesa L. Swehla ✓
Department Manager - Foods
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Sierra Schavrien
I.C.S. Associate
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Tauasi Paaga v
Human Resources
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Francis Canapi
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
(Page 1 of 2)
-
PARTIES OF RECORD
WALMART EXPANSION
LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF
Cheryl Harrelson ✓
Benjamin Gonsalves
Josh Smith
Walmart
Department Manager -
743 Rainier Avenue S
Pets/Chemicals/Paper Goods
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Walmart
(party of record)
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Levan
Josie Merveus `�
Abram Sparrow V
Department Manager
Department Manager
Department Manager
Walmart
Walmart
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
743 Rainier Aevnue S
743 Rainier Avenue
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
(party of record)
(party of record)
Valerie Reyes ;J
Jose O. Martinez
Irish Joy E. Layador 1
I.C.S. Lead Supervisor -
2nd Shift
Entertainment Zone Merchandise
Walmart
Supervisor
743 Rainier Avenue S
(party of record)
Walmart
Renton, WA 98057
743 Rainier Avenue S
(party of record)
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Updated: 04/15/10 (Page 2 of 2)
'z7 cia Mae _ - - .._ HUI9NIHSYM 'AI Hfq� 9N1>t 'k71N 33S r ; a
lLi �POL) Zvi
=
Mral �r.ii: �.l"" .. —... - S jAV 2i 31 N1b >!
3 OA3WS ONYI V SL'33H1`IN.i
Lhoea°�' �Nf `SJhiIH�11H a3Ot1 'H5f3f3 _ ��0-9L�Z#=�JO-l- �.HW IbM q
n
Q _O fi �I Il
Lr
1 s
LL-
LL
" ]nV �
`>1 3 n 1 -1. V Hs /
cr�
t
---------�
-,11111}s
-gin
I I 1 f
I i I
1 l 1
II
I ; I I
P
T
s ��VIAV
�IJIV
r--------------- --- .------r --r
---------�
-,11111}s
-gin
I I 1 f
I i I
1 l 1
II
I ; I I
l
T
�
1 1 1
-=Z
H
l 1 1
i
_�
r--------------- --- .------r --r
---------�
-,11111}s
-gin
I I 1 f
I i I
1 l 1
II
I ; I I
1
_ 1
1 I 3
�
1 1 1
! I
i.l..I
l 1 1
i
_�
I I 1
Q
V 1 1
I
,
1
n n I
AV
5 1
l
V 1s
V 3 1 Nis !
g
i. --------L.-----.-------
"','1l
V aH
uy�s '
nc'd @
on
En
i a
0
CV
a_
co
Z
0
a
CL as
WLO
}7F
V
°C
LU
O
V
�61
ilk I
O
6
i
CL
d
co
Q
CL
tr
(L
U)
uj 3:
O Q
N �
0
➢gm�f
u�;l'3 - �i.? '4: 'Ni h.G'il�Si Y]NtlIS'14N1rN�\ucsntlxi c,; ; wN iz�r�Nls.�ablwi:AX\w,h'�4soN\ i
u
x 8
19
A 519
LL
ilk I
O
6
i
CL
d
co
Q
CL
tr
(L
U)
uj 3:
O Q
N �
0
➢gm�f
u�;l'3 - �i.? '4: 'Ni h.G'il�Si Y]NtlIS'14N1rN�\ucsntlxi c,; ; wN iz�r�Nls.�ablwi:AX\w,h'�4soN\ i
x 8
O
6
i
CL
d
co
Q
CL
tr
(L
U)
uj 3:
O Q
N �
0
➢gm�f
u�;l'3 - �i.? '4: 'Ni h.G'il�Si Y]NtlIS'14N1rN�\ucsntlxi c,; ; wN iz�r�Nls.�ablwi:AX\w,h'�4soN\ i
3
u
o
-
LO
1
a
I �
LL-
3
s
a
co
Ue i
T
f1 a
01
0.1
�gE�q
3r d .....
LL
14 9 aR }} --
I
-pit
n_
I- t = "
L� �e �� � �a. }� age I� C�a! ��"•
=z'9n *j h,W'uei,! S�ol�nul �e:11WMKY2A�i vrvwh] N. A' wV,w„�M,ra�.{�1.:„ny\uo16u,:6M\��
CL
U r
wit9.e
Cc
��,� � � �e�� � �= ���e� � � 2�p6 �� a��a$yo•�k y^��L. a A"" __ � �� � � ��
s��
F 6#GG EYP _Y _ i F 6E fl4g��'3�3p
i � ypyF � Y �
Z ftA EYP µ C 2 �6� 6 4 ��
5 P A 4 � S 32 d GS Y krH J LI��L�IJLJ
o-
�M3 3fiN3AV 30WH
Od
IAF
Ont s �'`
Pit I� �
_MU. d
�r 5 pp
CCC777i1I
Ii c
'Al
4r C7)
o �
cs}
r
No q3 Fk ry�
I
I�
iDC s e_
Cote
@.,Il :;GCC C'89Gg•9 y. q
o-
�M3 3fiN3AV 30WH
Od
IAF
Ont s �'`
Pit I� �
_MU. d
1
a '
CCC777i1I
Ii c
4r C7)
o �
cs}
r
Wjc
I
I�
}
ZZZ4
1
a '
CCC777i1I
.. }
I
I�
}
ZZZ4
�.
1
TL
11
z
O
U)
z
rr OL
�X
b
I
w
fI1
'�'d[L r -']IOL tl iCr 6.v YJIIGNk(1PIN�W5 Nxpy uol� r15 B�-LL-01GL1uv�nl•57nwvy�2•t"'r'°�'7 'xi i "r pwt\auuE\wlwtllwlku.WTA'•. �5
w a y
MS a -90A 71�_
y
o
1
Pik
CO
W
V
o
ry
`
3
8
77
__
zm
w�
f _
E
- 1
fK�
�
•4
� Sate.
`J
f
9IL
0 _ '_
♦i
Mw
t1
r
e
i
s
w
y
o
1
CO
W
V
o
ry
J
LLI
3
8
zm
w�
x .a
Q; Oi . '' A.tl 6.P l0iiH7t4��'JttrEiN(2�m�caa]'Af 8 s�Y .rtntl.sa;x A',w�x�f�ic.EquNM�S
f _
fK�
�
•4
� Sate.
s '
t1
Q; Oi . '' A.tl 6.P l0iiH7t4��'JttrEiN(2�m�caa]'Af 8 s�Y .rtntl.sa;x A',w�x�f�ic.EquNM�S
Lr)
N
0
4-J
Ln
c
0
Q)
Nr
ow
LM
m
ci
a
1
CC
i;
V �
222
cc
TM
l
"
L
E
H
I�
0
LU
R
m
Ori
r
Q
IN
Mi
omr
0
m
cc�,
»
a
5¥
&
2
®§
�
|}
®
�
§k
2
�|
$§
cc�,
25
_ �
�
�
�
�
;/
}f I
:�
: �
t y�
lld�eMA
1.�
IQ -
C) 0-
1�
Ol �) N
- MVA 'MUNAN
x\
N� \1
X
FTI
a�� v
n
i
m
m
m
� �
4
o
U
■
a��•ti. � r
4:
3
MES41
W'
Y'
•
�
{{ss
Y
FTI
a�� v
n
i
m
m
m
� �
4
o
U
0
3
r
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The Honorable Brian D. Gain
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
KING COUNTY
RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY }
GROWTH, }
Petitioner, j
V. }
}
PACLAND; JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E.; )
BONNELL FAMILY, LLC; PETER )
BONNELL; CITY OF RENTON )
Respondents. )
No. 10-2-31728-7 KNT
FINAL ORDER AND
RJDCMENT
w€ --..J
s
This matter came before this Court on February 11, 2011 on a Land Use Petition filed
by Petitioner pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW, challenging the land
use decision of the City of Renton approving the site plan for Wal -Mart's proposed remodel and
expansion of a retail store. The Court heard the arguments of counsel, read the pleadings filed
in this matter, reviewed the administrative record of the proceedings prepared and certified to
the Court by the City of Renton, and reviewed the Hearing Examiner's decision, affirmed by
the City Council_
The Court hereby finds and concludes:
FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT - 1
nwr 16560615v10031150 -0002N
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
141
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
•
1) The City of Renton acted within its authority in approving the site plan and
Petitioner failed to establish that the City of Renton engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to
follow a prescribed process in malting the land use decision, or that such error is not harmless.
2) The land use decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
3) The City of Renton properly interpreted and applied its code requirements in
approving the proposed site plan, and the land use decision is not an erroneous interpretation of
the law or a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts.
The Petitioner has failed to satisfy the standards of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(a)-(d) and is
therefore not entitled to relief
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the City's land
use decision is upheld, and Petitioner's Land Use Petition is denied and dismissed with
prejudice.
DATED this 7—F day of February, 2011.
Presented by.
DAVIS WRIGHT TRElAAlNE, LLP
Attoi
no
I
WSBA No. 15491
FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT - 2
DWT 1656D615v1 0031150-OODM
I
Lawrence J. Warren
Renton City Attorney
2
3
/
By:d�.,r%li--*t- Y'^� Zf l7�rr te%-Irc%
!v
Garmon Newsom II
4
WSBA No. 31418
Attorneys for Respondent City of Renton
5
6
Approved as to form; notice of presentation waived:
7
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
$
By: •••--�
9
t1faudia M. Newman
WSBA No. 24928
10
Attorneys for Petitioner Renton Neighbors
for Healthy Growth
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
FINAL ORDER AND RIDGMENT - 3
DWT 16560615x1 0031150-000288
r]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR
HEALTHY GROWTH,
Appellant,
►FA
PACLAND; JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E.;
BONNELL FAMILY, LLC; PETER
BONNELL; CITY OF RENTON,
Respondents,
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Intervenor.
NO, 66874-9-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: May 14, 2012
LAu, J. —Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. proposes to expand its Renton store by 16,000
square feet. The existing store was built before the current zoning regulations were
enacted and is nonconforming in some respects. Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth
(RNHG) opposes the expansion, claiming that (1) it illegally expands a nonconforming
use and (2) it fails to comply with the city of Renton's design regulations. The hearing
examiner approved Wal -Mart's proposal with several conditions, and the city council
affirmed. RNHG appeals the hearing examiner's decision to approve the expansion
under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW. Because (1) the
0
66874-9-1/2
E
hearing examiner's interpretation of the relevant code provisions is reasonable,
(2) the hearing examiner's unchallenged findings are supported by substantial evidence,
and (3) RNHG demonstrates no clear error in the hearing examiner's application of the
law to the facts, we affirm.
FACTS
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. retained PACLAND to provide civil engineering services for
a proposed store expansion in the city of Renton (City). In 2019, PACLAND filed an
application with the City for site plan review of a proposal to expand Wal -Mart's existing
134,352 square -foot store by approximately 16,000 square feet. The project would also
reduce Wal -Mart's garden center by 4,000 square feet and add 127 parking stalls. The
Wal-Mart property was zoned "commercial arterial" and "medium industrial."' an
February 22, 2010, the City accepted PACLAND's application for review.
The City's Environmental Review Committee reviewed the project application
and issued a "Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated," including six mitigation
measures, for the Wal-Mart expansion. No appeals of this determination were filed.
The City's Department of Community and Economic Development issued a preliminary
report to the hearing examiner. The report indicated that Wal -Mart's proposal was "not
compliant" with several city code provisions but recommended the City approve the
expansion subject to several conditions. The hearing examiner held a public hearing for
A majority of the site was zoned "commercial arterial," with a small area on the
western part of the site designated "medium industrial." "For the purposes of the Site
Plan Review the tCommercial Arterial] standards were used to review the proposal."
-2-
i
66874-9-1/3
E
Wal -Mart's site plan application. The City received no public opposition to the project .2
The hearing examiner made extensive findings based on the preliminary report and the
hearing testimony. He adopted most of the analysis in the preliminary report and
approved Wal -Mart's expansion proposal subject to eleven conditions.
RNHG failed to submit any comment letters and did not attend the hearing
because it was not aware of the proposal at that time. RNHG fled a request for
reconsideration, arguing that the project violated several Renton Municipal Code (RMC)
requirements and illegally expanded a nonconforming use. The hearing examiner
denied RNHG's request, concluding there was "no reason to alter the original decision
nor the conditions attached to that decision." RNHG also appealed the hearing
examiner's decision to the Renton city council. After a hearing, the city council's
planning and development committee voted to uphold the hearing examiner's decision
and recommended that the full city council do the same. The city council adopted the
Committee's recommendation and affirmed the hearing examiner's decision.
RNHG filed a land use petition with the superior court under LUPA. Wal-Mart
intervened in the action and moved to dismiss for lack of standing.3 The trial court
denied the motion, ruling that RNHG met the RCW 36.70C.060(2) requirements for
standing. But the trial court denied RNHG's land use petition on the merits, ruling
(1) the City acted within its authority in approving Wal -Mart's site plan, (2) substantial
2 To the contrary, the City received several letters and a petition with numerous
signatures indicating community support for the project -
3 The respondents initially named in the petition were PACLAND and its contact
Jeff Chambers, the property owner Peter Bonnell and Bonnell Family, LLC, and the
City. In this opinion we refer to Wal-Mart and the City collectively as "respondents."
-3-
E
66874-9-114
0
evidence supported the decision, (3) the City properly interpreted and applied its code
requirements in approving the site plan, and (4) the land use decision was not an
erroneous interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous application of the law to the
facts. The court concluded, "[RNHG] has failed to satisfy the standards of RCW
36.70C.130(1)(a)-(d) and is therefore not entitled to relief." RNHG appeals.
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
LUPA is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of land use decisions,
with certain exceptions not applicable here. Friends of Cedar Park Neighborhood v.
City of Seattle, 156 Wn. App. 633, 640, 234 P.3d 214 (2010). We review the decision of
the "local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the
determination, including those with authority to hear appeals." RCW 36.700.020(2).
Thus, when reviewing a LUPA decision, we stand in the shoes of the superior court,
reviewing the ruling below on the administrative record. HJS_Dev. Inc. v. Pierce County
ex rel._Dep't_of Planning & Land Servs., 148 Wn.2d 451, 468, 61 P.3d 1141 (2003).
Here, because the City Council adopted the hearing examiner's findings of fact and
conclusions of law, we review the hearing examiner's decision. See RMC 4-8-100(K)(2)
("Unless otherwise specified, the City Council shall be presumed to have adopted the
Examiner's findings and conclusions.")
Under LUPA, a court may grant relief only if the party seeking relief has carried
the burden of establishing that one of the standards set forth in RCW 36.70C.130(1) is
met. RNHG cites four standards in its appellate brief:
-4-
0
66874-9-115
to
(a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in
unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was
harmless-,
(b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after
allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local
jurisdiction with expertise;
(c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial
when viewed in light of the whole record before the court-,
(d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to
the facts ....
Appellant's Br. at 7 (quoting RCW 36.70C. 1 30(l)). Subsections (a) and (b) are
questions of law that we review de novo. Phoenix Dev., Inc, v. City of Woodinville, 171
Wn.2d 820, 828, 256 P.3d 1150 (2011). "When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence under subsection (c), we view facts and inferences in a light most
favorable to the party that prevailed in the highest forum exercising fact-finding
authority," in this case the City and Wal-Mart. Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn-2d at 828 -29 -
This process "`necessarily entails acceptance of the fact finder's views regarding the
credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given reasonable but competing
inferences.'" City of Univ. Place v. McGuire, 144 Wn.2d 640, 652, 30 P -3d 453 (2001)
(quoting State ex rel- Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. County of Pierce, 65 Wn. App. 614,
618, 829 P.2d 217 (1992)). Under the substantial evidence standard, there must be
sufficient evidence to "persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true."
Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn.2d at 829. We do not weigh the evidence or substitute our
judgment for the reviewing official's judgment. Phoenix Dev-, 171 Wn.2d at 832. Under
subsection (d), the application of the law to the facts is clearly erroneous—and thus
reversible ---only if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed. Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn.2d at 829; Milestone Homes. Inc. v. City of Bonney
Lake, 145 Wn. APP. 118, 126, 186 P. 3d 357 (2008)-
-5-
UN
Standinq
The respondents contend RNHG tacks standing because it failed to attend the
public Hearing and thus failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. RNHG argues
that attendance at the hearing was not required and it otherwise exhausted all
administrative remedies required under the RMC.
Outside the Declaratory Judgments Act, standing is an issue that must be raised
in the trial court .4 Amal amated Transit Union Local 587 v_ State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 203-
04 n.4, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000); see also Baker v. Teachers Ins. & Annuities
Ass'n Coll. Ret. Equity Funds, 91 Wn.2d 482, 484, 588 P.2d 1164 (1979) (where issue
of standing was not submitted to trial court, it could not be considered on appeal)_ Here,
4 Some of our cases erroneously refer to standing as "jurisdictional" and allow it
to be raised for the first time on appeal. But article IV, section 6 of the Washington
Constitution does not exclude any causes from the broad jurisdiction of superior courts,
meaning Washington courts have few constraints on their jurisdiction. Krieschel v. Bd.
of Snohomish County Comm'rs, 12 Wash. 428, 439, 41 P. 186 (1895); Philip A_
Talmadge, Understanding the Limits of Power Judicial Restraint in General Jurisdiction
Court Systems, 22 Seattle U. L. Rev. 695, 708-09 (1999). Thus, if a defendant waives
the defense that the plaintiff lacks standing, Washington courts can reach the merits.
Talmadge at 718-19; Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, 105 Wn.2d 318, 327,
715 P_2d 123 (1986) ("if the issue of standing is not submitted to the trial court, it may
not be considered on appeal.") vacated on other rounds, 483 U.S. 232, 107 S_ Ct_
2810, 97 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1987). A recent decision from our Supreme Court, Knight t v_
City of Yelm_, 173 Wn.2d 325, 336, 267 P.3d 973 (2011), states that "[s]tanding is
jurisdictional." But Knight refers back to Chelan County v. Nykrelm, 146 Wn.2d 904,
926, 52 P.3d 1 (2002), and Nvkriem (putting "jurisdiction" in quotes) refers back to
Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 181, 4 P.3d 123
(2000), which does not use the word "jurisdiction" at all, but simply mentions the well-
established rule that to invoke the superior court's appellate jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdiction
the court already possesses), one must strictly comply with any procedural
requirements the legislature has established_ This does not mean that the litigant's
compliance vests the court with jurisdiction or that the litigant's lack of compliance
divests the court of jurisdiction. Our Supreme Court has wamed against the type of
casual and imprecise use of the term "jurisdiction" that occurs in Knight. See Marled
De 't of Labor & Indus., 125 Wn.2d 533, 541, 886 P.2d 189 (1994).
0
66874-9-117
the respondents raised the issue below when they moved to dismiss for lack of
standing, but the trial court concluded RNHG had standing and denied the motion. The
respondents neither cross appealed that ruling nor assigned error to it on appeal.
"Failure to cross-appeal an issue generally precludes its review on appeal-"
Amalgamated Transit, 142 Wn_2d at 202. Review of the record also shows that the
respondents raised the standing issue before the hearing examiner and the City
Council. The respondents failed to cross appeal either of those decisions even though
the hearing examiner and City Council reached the merits of RNHG's arguments and
implicitly concluded RNHG had standing. See Caswell v. Pierce County, 99 Wn. App.
194, 197, 992 P.2d 534 (2000) (in LUPA case, when respondents "have not cross -
appealed the hearing examiner's conclusion, and the superior court's concurrence"
regarding certain issues, the appellate court will not address those issues). Here the
respondents waived their standing argument by failing to cross appeal or assign error to
the trial court's ruling on standing.
"Vesting"
The parties dispute which version of the RMC applies in our review.$ RNHG
argues that Wal-Mart "vested to" the former version of the RMC that was in effect at the
time the City accepted Wal -Mart's site plan review application for review in February
2010. Appellant's Reply Br. at 39. It argues that all review was based on application of
5 The RMC has been amended several times since the City accepted Wal -Mart's
site plan review application in February 2010. Relevant to this opinion, several RMC
provisions were amended in March 2010, after the City accepted review but before the
hearing examiner made his decision.
-7-
0
0
the former RMC6 and we should review the hearing examiner's decision under that
version. Wal-Mart argues that a "site plan application does not trigger vesting," and
thus, the former RMC provisions do not apply to our review. RespTs Br. at 18_
Washington's vested rights doctrine "entitles developers to have a land
development proposal processed under the regulations in effect at the time a complete
building permit application is filed ... _" Abbey Rd. Group, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake,
167 Wn.2d 242, 250, 218 P.3d 180 (2009). RCW 19.27.095(1) provides:
A valid and fully complete building permit application for a structure, that is
permitted under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the
date of the application shall be considered under the building permit ordinance in
effect at the time of application, and the zoning or other land use control
ordinances in effect on the date of application_
We conclude the vested rights doctrine does not apply here. RNHG cites no
authority applying the vested rights doctrine when determining which version of a local
ordinance applies to a hearing examiner's decision on a site plan review application.'
See Beal for Martinez v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 777 n.2, 954 P.2d 237 (1998)
("The City cites no authority for this proposition and, thus, it is not properly before us.")
(citing RAP 10.3(a)(5); Schmidt v. Cornerstone lnvs.-Inc., 115 Wn.2d 148, 166, 795
6 For clarity, we refer to the RMC provisions in effect in February 2010 as the
"former RMC" and to the amended RMC provisions in effect at the time the hearing
examiner made his decision simply as the "RMC_"
Even if we were asked to decide whether Wal -Mart's development rights
"vested," they did not in this case. In Abbey Road, our Supreme Court made clear that
absent a local vesting ordinance specifying an earlier vesting date, development rights
vest only upon filing a complete building permit application and do not vest merely upon
filing a site plan review permit application. Abbey Rd., 167 Wn.2d at 252-61. Here Wal-
Mart filed a site plan review application, not a complete building permit application. The
RMC mirrors state law on vesting and establishes no earlier vesting date. See RMC 4-
8-060(B). Thus Wal -Mart's application does not confer vested development rights.
91
0 0
66874-9-1/9
P.2d 1143 (1990)). The issue here is which version of the RMC applies to our review of
the hearing examiner's decision, not whether Wal-Mart had vested development rights
by virtue of its site plan review application.
We stand in the shoes of the superior court, reviewing the hearing examiner's
ruling below on the administrative record. HJS Dev., 148 Wn.2d at 468. The City
amended portions of its urban design regulations in March 2010, before the hearing
examiner heard this case. The amended version thus applied to the hearing examiner's
original decision on May 13, 2010, and his reconsideration on June 10. We apply the
amended RMC in effect when the examiner made his decision. See Phoenix Dev., 171
Wn.2d at 834-36 (in reviewing City's denial of rezone application, court applied version
of Woodinville Municipal Code in effect when City made its decision); Woods v. Kittitas
Coun , 162 Wn.2d 597, 617-25, 174 P.3d 25 (2007) (in reviewing county board of
commissioners' approval of rezone application, court applied version of Kittitas County
Code in effect when Board made its decision); City of Medina v. T -Mobile USA, Inc_,
123 Wn. App. 19, 29-33, 95 P.3d 377 (2004) (in reviewing hearing examiner's approval
of a variance application, court applied version of Medina Municipal Code in effect when
examiner made his decision).
RNHG argues that because the table incorporated into the hearing examiner's
decision "parallels the version of RMC 4-3-100 that [was in effect at the time Wal-Mart
applied for its site plan approval]," the hearing examiner reviewed Wal -Mart's proposal
under that former version rather than the amended version that he should have used.
Appellant's Reply Br. at 39. Thus, according to RNHG, "all review in this case was
based upon the application of the previous version of the lawn and we should use the
91
! 0
66874-9-1110
former version. Appellant's Reply Br. at 38. But RNHG failed to raise this argument in
its request for reconsideration, its notice of appeal or briefing to the city council, or
during the appeal hearing before the city council in August 2010_ RNHG cited the
amended version of the RMC—particularly portions of RMC 4-3-100(A), which it now
argues are inapplicable -----in its opening and reply briefs in its appeal to the city council.
Those briefs were filed well after the hearing examiner ruled on RNHG's request for
reconsideration. RNHG thus had sufficient time to raise the issue before the city council
and failed to do so.
RNHG also failed to raise the issue in its LUPA petition or its trial brief, despite
citing the former version of the RMC. RNHG raised its argument for the first time in its
reply brief in the superior court. But we review the hearing examiner's action, not the
proceedings before the superior court, on the basis of the administrative record de
novo. HJS Dev_, 148 Wn.2d at 468. In LUPA cases, we may refuse to consider
arguments raised for the first time on review. RAP 2.5(a); First Pioneer Trading Co.,
Inc. v. Pierce County, 146 Wn. App. 606, 617 n.5, 191 P.3d 928 (2008). Here, RNHG
did not challenge the version of the RMC applied before the hearing examiner or the city
council and provides no explanation why the argument could not have been made
earlier. Thus, RNHG did not put either the hearing examiner or the council on notice of
its challenge to the version of the RMC applied. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City
of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 869, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997) ("Our cases require
issues to be first raised at the administrative level .. _ ."); Exendine v. City of
Sammamish, 127 Wn. App. 574, 113 P.3d 494 (2005) (trial court properly refused to
allow LUPA petitioners to raise a new argument not raised or argued before the hearing
-10-
0
66874-9-1111
examiner). Because RNHG failed to raise the issue of whether the hearing examiner
applied an incorrect version of the RMC before either the hearing examiner or the city
council, we decline to consider that challenge now_8
"Verities on Appeal"
The parties also dispute whether the hearing examiner's findings are verities on
appeal in this case. RNHG argues that under I_UPA, notice pleading is sufficient to
challenge all the hearing examiner's findings and, furthermore, the hearing examiner
made only "circumscribed findings based on other legal criteria, not those listed in RMC
4-2-120C(15)." Appellant's Reply Br. at 35. Wal-Mart contends that failure to assign
error to a hearing examiner's findings of fact makes them verities on appeal.
In City of Medina, we reviewed a hearing examiner's decision granting T -Mobile's
request for a special use permit and three variances. City of Medina, 123 Wn. App. at
22. We concluded that "[Medina] does not appear to challenge any of the hearing
examiner's findings in this case, so they are verities on appeal." City of Medina, 123
Wn. App_ at 29. Similarly, in United Development Corp. v. City. of Mill Creek, 106 Wn.
App. 681, 684, 26 P.3d 943 (2001), we reviewed the city council's imposition of
mitigation fees and other conditions on a subdivision. We concluded that "because
[United Development Corporation] assigns no error to the findings of the City Council,
8 Even if we considered RNHG's argument, RNHG cites to nothing else in the
hearing examiner's decision or elsewhere in the record that indicates which version of
the code he applied, and on reconsideration, the hearing examiner cited the amended
version, showing he reviewed his decision under the amended version. (Clerk's Papers
(CP) at 77-78 (citing amended RMC 4-3-140(A)(2)). The hearing examiner concluded
on reconsideration that the "[amended RMC] provisions cited above allow sufficient
latitude to permit the proposed expansion as conditioned in the decision." Given our
limited review, we are unable to conclude the hearing examiner applied an incorrect
version of the law.
-11-
0
66874-9-Il12
0
they are verities on appeal." United Dev., 106 Wn. App. at 688. See also Stuewe v.
Dep't of Revenue, 98 Wn. App. 947, 950, 991 P.2d 634 (2000) (administrative finding of
fact not assigned error is verity on appeal); Hilltop Terrace Homeowner's Ass'n v. Island
County, 126 Wn.2d 22, 30, 891 P.2d 29 (1995) (same).
This case is similar to City of Medina and United Development Corp. The
hearing examiner made numerous findings of fact based on the administrative record
before him. RNHG assigns error "to the King County Superior Court's Final Order and
Judgment issued on February 22, 201 V Appellant's Br. at 2. RNHG assigns no error
to the hearing examiner's findings and cites no authority for its argument that LUPA
petitioners challenge all of the hearing examiner's findings when they petition via simple
notice pleading. See First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Liberty Capital Starpoint Equity for Fund,
LLC, 161 Wn. App. 474, 486, 254 P.3d 835 (2011) (declining to consider an
inadequately briefed argument). The hearing examiner's findings are verities on appeal.
Substantial evidence supports the findings as discussed below_
Merits of Hearina Examiner's Decision
RNHG argues that the hearing examiner's decision should be overturned
because (1) Wal -Mart's proposal violates the City's design regulations applicable to
district D under RMC 4-3-100 and (2) the proposal is an illegal expansion of a
nonconforming use under RMC 4-10-050. We address the design regulations issue first
because it affects both arguments.
-12-
66874-9-1113
Design Requlations9
RMC 4-3-100's design regulations apply to development within certain
designated design districts, including design district D where Wal-Mart is located. RMC
4-3-100(B)(1)(b), (3). The design regulations list elements that are required for
development in the applicable design districts. Each element includes an intent
statement, standards, and guidelines. RMC 4-3-100(A)(2). The standards "specify a
prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met," while the guidelines and
intent statement "provide direction for those who seek to meet the required element in a
manner that is different from the standards." RMC 4-3-100(A)(2). The design
regulations mandate that the hearing examiner
shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals
based upon the provisions of the design regulations_ In rendering a decision, the
[hearing examiner] will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will
consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and
encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the
design regulations.
RMC 4-3-100(D)(2). If the examiner determines "that the proposed manner of meeting
the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall
not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline
that has been approved."'0 RMC 4-3-100(A)(2)(b)_ "Where there are conflicts between
the design regulations of this Section and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code,
the regulations of this Section shalt prevail_" RMC 4-3-100(B)(2).
y As discussed above, we apply the amended design regulations in effect when
the hearing examiner made his decision.
'° This provision does not appear in the former RMC. RNHG argues that the
hearing examiner erred when he cited this provision in his decision on reconsideration.
We addressed that argument above.
-13-
66874-9-1114
RNHG first argues that the standards set forth in the design regulations are
mandatory and the hearing examiner erred in permitting Wal-Mart to meet the intent and
guidelines rather than the specific standards. For this proposition, it cites to the former
RMC provisions, which provided that the minimum standards "must be met." Former
RMC 4-3-100(A)(8). As discussed above, the RMC was amended in March 2010
before the hearing examiner made his decision. The amendments removed the "must
be met" language. As quoted above, the amended version of the RMC applicable at the
time the hearing examiner decided this case did not require an applicant "to
demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been
approved" as long as the applicant satisfied the intent and guidelines associated with
the design requirement. RMC 4-3-100(A)(2)(b). "'It is a well established rule of
statutory construction that considerable judicial deference should be given to the
construction of an ordinance by those officials charged with its enforcement.'" Citizens
for a Safe Neighborhood v. City of Seattle, 67 Wn_ App. 436, 440, 836 P.2d 235 (1992)
(quoting Mall, Inc. v. Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 369, 377, 739 P.2d 668 (1987)); see also Gen.
Motors Corp. v. City of Seattle, 107 Wn. App. 42, 57, 25 P.3d 1022 (2001). Our
Supreme Court has explained the reasons for this rule of deference:
"The primary foundation and rationale for this rule is that considerable judicial
deference should be accorded to the special expertise of administrative
agencies. Such expertise is often a valuable aid in interpreting and applying an
ambiguous statute in harmony with the policies and goals the legislature sought
to achieve by its enactment. At times, administrative interpretation of a statute
may approach 'lawmaking,' but we have heretofore recognized that it is an
appropriate function for administrative agencies to 'fill in the gaps' where
necessary to the effectuation of a general statutory scheme. It is likewise valid
for an administrative agency to 'fill in the gaps' via statutory construction—as
long as the agency does not purport to `amend' the statute."
-14-
66874-9-1115
Mall, 108 Wn.2d at 378 (quoting Hama Hama Co- v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 85 Wn.2d
441, 448, 536 P.2d 157 (1975)) (internal citations omitted). Given the hearing
examiner's authority to "consider proposals on the basis of individual merit," "consider
the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines," and "encourage creative
design alternatives," we decline to disturb the hearing examiner's interpretation of the
RMC. RMC 4-3-100(D)(2). The hearing examiner did not err in considering whether
Wal-Mart met the intent and guidelines associated with the design regulations despite
not meeting the applicable standards. The examiner concluded on reconsideration that
the RMC 4-3-100(A) and (D) provisions cited above "allow sufficient latitude to permit
the proposed expansion as conditioned in the decision." RNHG fails to show that "[t]he
land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such
deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise."
RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b).
RNHG next argues that the Wal-Mart proposal violates several design regulation
standards_ Specifically, RNHG contends that the proposal fails to conform to standards
governing parking areas, tree planting, and building architectural design." See
Appellant's Opening Br. at 25-27. To the extent RNHG contends these standards are
mandatory and the hearing examiner erred in concluding otherwise, our discussion
above resolves this contention. To the extent RNHG contends that insufficient evidence
supports the hearing examiner's findings on these matters, 12 the findings are verities on
11 RNHG does not raise or brief any other specific objections to the proposal's
compliance with the design regulations.
12 RNHG does not specifically make an insufficiency of the evidence:" argument
and thus we need not consider it on appeal. See First Am., 161 Wn. App. at 486
-15-
66874-9-1116
appeal as discussed above. Even if we review the findings—viewing the facts and
inferences most favorably to the City and Wal -Mark as the prevailing parties below—
substantial evidence supports them under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) and the findings
support the hearing examiner's conclusions. The hearing examiner heard testimony at
the public hearing regarding code compliance and deviations necessitated by the site
layout and existing structure. Various meeting attendees testified that the proposal
would meet the design regulations' intent and guidelines even if certain standards were
not met. City staff prepared a detailed report and recommended conditions to bring the
proposal further in line with the intent and guidelines: The hearing examiner also
considered public comment letters describing how the Wal-Mart expansion would
improve the surrounding area and create jobs and advancement opportunities for
employees. RNHG fails to demonstrate that "[t]he land use decision is not supported by
evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court"
under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c).
Likewise, RNHG fails to satisfy its burden under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d) to
demonstrate clear error in the hearing examiner's application of the design regulations
to Wal -Mart's proposal. As discussed above, we defer to the hearing examiner's
conclusion that the design regulations were not mandatory and that in the event a
proposal fails to comply with standards, an applicant may demonstrate compliance with
the intent and guidelines behind a particular regulation. Relevant to RNHG's
challenges, RMC 4-3-100's design regulation intent statements include the intent to
(declining to consider an inadequately briefed argument). Nevertheless, we address
this prong of RCW 36.70C.130(1) for completeness.
-16-
0 0
66874-9-1117
"maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily
in back of buildings;" "provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings;"
and "encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a
human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific
Northwest climate and to discourage franchise retail architecture." RMC 4-3-100(E).
The hearing examiner specifically addressed the noncompliance issue. He found that
the site layout and existing conditions justified deviation from some standards given that
the intent was met, and he imposed conditions to bring Wal-Mart further into
compliance.' Given the design elements' flexibility, the hearing examiner's discretion
in applying them, and the examiner's specific findings --unchallenged by RNHG and
supported by substantial evidence in the record—RNHG fails to demonstrate any basis
for reversing the examiner's decision for "clear error" --which is appropriate only if we
are "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn.2d at 829.
Illegal Expansion of Nonconforming Structure
RNHG argues that the hearing examiner's decision requires reversal
because Wal-Mart proposed an illegal enlargement of a nonconforming structure
under RMC 4-10-050_ Specifically, RNHG argues Wal -Mart's proposal (1) violates
RMC 4-2-120(A)'s maximum front yard setback of 15 feet and (2) violates the City's
13 Among the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions are: "the applicant has
met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of
landscaping„; "the applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide
more visual interest"; "the applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide
additional interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping to shield and buffer the
parking lot"; and "pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have
been enhanced." The hearing examiner's conditions required Wal-Mart to comply with
guidelines regarding lighting, building fagade, landscaping, and other areas.
-17-
66874-9-1118
design regulations. The respondents argue that the RMC allows the City to waive the
15 -foot maximum setback requirement. The parties agree that the existing Wal-Mart
store is "nonconforming" within the meaning of RMC 4-10-050.
RMC 4-10-050(A)(4) provides that nonconforming structures "shall not be
enlarged unless the enlargement is conforming or it is consistent with the provisions of a
rebuild approval permit issued for it." RMC 4-2-120(A) imposes a 15 -foot maximum
front yard setback requirement in the commercial arterial zone. Due to a large parking
lot in front of the store, the existing Wal-Mart store's front entrance is approximately 555
feet from the relevant access roads (Hardy Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S). To
comply with RMC 4-2-120(A)'s 15 -foot maximum setback requirement, Wal -Mart's
expansion would need to extend approximately 540 feet across its existing parking
area. The hearing examiner found:
The [Commercial Arterial] Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet
in order to locate structures closer to the street and reduce the visual impact of
parking along thoroughfares. The proposed expansion would not comply with
this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hard[y]-
Rainier. Staff found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the
proposed existing complex it does not trigger a need to conform to the newer,
current standards_
The hearing examiner concluded=
The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code
requirements for the setback along its frontage street, the Hard[y]-Rainier
complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the
front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed
approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish
the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is
allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably
permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback....
.... The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code,
actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its
neighboring uses ....
-18-
66874-9-1/19
RNHG first argues that because (1) a portion of the hearing testimony referred to
RMC provisions for "alterations" rather than "enlargements," and (2) "[t]here is no
reference to or acknowledgment of RMC 4-10-050 by the Examiner in his conclusion,"
the hearing examiner and City staff misinterpreted the RMC's provisions regarding
enlargement of nonconforming structures_ Appellant's Opening Br. at 15-16. The
hearing examiner's decision shows that while the hearing examiner did not explicitly cite
RMC 4-10-050, he considered this provision. The hearing examiner concluded that the
existing store was nonconforming and that given the existing layout and site constraints,
the expansion could not "be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of
15 feet." The hearing examiner thus considered RMC 4-10-050(A)(4)'s requirement that
nonconforming structures "shall not be enlarged unless the enlargement is conforming."
Any reference to "alterations" rather than expansions in the hearing testimony is
harmless given the hearing examiner's final decision, which considered Wal -Mart's
proposal under the proper "expansion" analysis.
RNHG next argues that the hearing examiner erred in concluding that the City's
design regulations contained in RMC 4-3-100 supersede RMC provisions that prohibit
expansion of nonconforming structures. The respondents contend that the expansion
complies with the design regulations, which take precedence over any conflicting zoning
requirements—including the 15 -foot maximum setback.
In response to RNHG's request for reconsideration, the hearing examiner
explained the relationship between RMC 4-3-100's design regulations and the other
zoning provisions in the RMC:
The Design District Regulations are `overlay' provisions [that] govern properties
within their boundaries regardless of the underlying zoning and other zoning
-19-
66874-9-1120
provisions. The overlay guidelines provide that projects be reviewed with an eye
toward flexibility to forward the main thrust of the guidelines — to create better
designed and integrated projects. The guidelines allow different or creative ways
to achieve those principles.
Further, the hearing examiner emphasized that (1) the design regulations' intent
statements and guidelines "'provide direction for those who seek to meet the required
element in a manner that is different from the standards'" and (2) the reviewing official
should 'encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the
design regulations."' CP at 78 (quoting RMC 4-3-100(A)(2), (A)(2)(b)).
The hearing examiner clarified for RN HG that the RMC 4-3-100's design
regulations apply to la ]Iterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of nonconforming
structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050'" as well as to 'Iblig box retail"' such as Wal-Mart.
CP at 78 (quoting RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v) and (b)). Thus, "not only is the
redevelopment of non -conforming uses permitted under these [design] regulations but
they, in the language of the code, 'shall be required to comply with the provisions of [the
design regulations]."' CP at 78-79 (quoting RMC 4-3-1 00(13)(1)(a)).
As discussed above, "[w]hen construing an ordinance, a 'reviewing court gives
considerable deference to the construction of the challenged ordinance by those
officials charged with its enforcement.'" Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn.2d at 830 (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. City of Seattle, 160 Wn.2d 32, 42, 156 P.3d 185 (2007)). At issue
here is the proper interpretation of the .relationship between two RMC provisions:
RMC 4-10-050(A) (nonconforming uses) and RMC 4-3-100 (design regulations).
RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b)(ii) states that all big box retail development in the Commercial
Arterial zone must comply with the design regulations_ And as discussed above,
"[w)here there are conflicts between the design regulations of [RMC 4-3-100] and other
-20-
66874-9-1121
sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the [design regulations] shall prevail. RMC 4-3-
100(6)(2).
The hearing examiner interpreted the RMC to permit properties within the design
regulation districts to be developed "in accordance with the guidelines rather than the
more general regulations governing properties outside of a District governed by overlay
regulations." Thus, Wal -Mart's proposal need only comply with the design regulations,
not RMC 4-10-050(A)'s nonconforming use provisions_ Assuming a conflict existed
between RMC 4-3-100's design regulations and RMC 4-10-050(A)'s provisions
governing nonconforming uses, this is a reasonable interpretation given the conflicts
language in RMC 4-3-100(8)(2). Because we defer to the City's determination of what
the RMC requires, we conclude that the hearing examiner properly interpreted the RMC
to allow Wal-Mart—in the event the two RMC provisions at issue conflict— to comply
with the design regulations rather than the nonconforming use provisions.
We next consider whether a conflict exists_ RNHG argues that the 15 -foot
setback requirement and the design regulations do not conflict and therefore the design
regulations do not supersede the 15 -foot setback. The respondents argue that the 15 -
foot setback conflicts with the design regulations as applied by the hearing examiner.
A conflict exists when it is "impossible to comply" with two separate directives.
See Magnolia Neighborhood Planning Council v. City of Seattle, 155 Wn. App. 305,
318, 230 P.3d 190 (2010) (addressing conflicts standards in context of federal
preemption); Lawson v. City of Pasco, 144 Wn. App. 203, 213-14, 181 P.3d 896 (2008)
(applying the federal "impossible to comply" conflict test in deciding whether a state
statute conflicted with a city ordinance)-
-21-
66874-9-1122
In Baker v. Snohomish County Department of Planning & Communes
Development, 68 Wn. App. 581, 841 P_2d 1321 (1992), we addressed a claim of conflict
between the permitting requirements of a state regulatory agency and a county. We
found it "impossible to demonstrate in the abstract that the provisions of [a state
regulatory agency permit] and the provisions of the [county] land -use permit are in
conflict" when both the state regulatory agency and the county have a large measure of
discretion in fixing the terms of a permit. Baker, 68 Wn. App. at 591. "Where any
conflict is hypothetical and dependent upon the precise manner in which two
discretionary permits were crafted, it is inappropriate to find preemption by implication_
It is soon enough to find preemption when a conflict arises." Baker, 68 Wn. App_ at 591.
Thus, we have acknowledged that agencies may need to exercise their discretion
before we can determine whether a conflict exists.
As discussed above, the design regulations confer considerable discretion on the
hearing examiner. Applicable RMC 4-3-100 design regulation intent statements
regarding building placement and design include the intent to "organize buildings for
pedestrian use;" "ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas,
and other land uses;" "make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to
access;" "ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting
sidewalk and the urban character of the district;" "maintain active pedestrian
environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings;"
and "provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings."
RMC 4-3-100(E)(1)-(3).
-22-
66874-9-1/23
Here the hearing examiner considered the required design elements and
determined that a larger setback was appropriate because it allowed for better design.
He concluded that "only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild" would meet
the 15 -foot setback requirement and that Wal -Mart's proposed 16,000 square foot
expansion "cannot be expected to close the distance to the street to 15 feet." CP 1001,
1002. He determined, "The extensive setback ... helps the transition between a rather
large big box store and its neighboring uses." He also determined that "[t]aking
advantage of the building's existing placement ... help[s] achieve a reasonable
proposal." Other relevant conclusions include that "[Wal-Mart] has gone beyond code
requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping to
shield and buffer the parking lot;" "[p]edestrian links through the site and to the
surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts;" and "pedestrian pathways
and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced." The hearing examiner
characterized his decision as a "tradeoff ... allowing a reasonably well-designed
expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the
excessive setback." Thus, the hearing examiner exercised h.is discretion in finding that
Wal -Mart's proposal, while not compliant with several design regulation standards, met
the intent and guidelines of the design regulations. Upon exercising this discretion, the
15 -foot setback was impossible to achieve. We conclude that a conflict exists between
RMC 4-3-100 design regulations and RMC provisions that prohibit expansion of
nonconforming uses. The hearing examiner properly applied RMC 4-3-100 rather than
RMC 4-10-050.
64911
r
66874-9-1124
RNHG also argues that in addition to violating the 15 -foot setback requirement,
Wal -Mart's proposal violates the design regulations pertaining to building and parking
structures. This claim fails for the reasons discussed above.
Attorney Fees
Wal-Mart and the City seek attorney fees on appeal as the prevailing parties under
RCW 4.84.370. The prevailing party on appeal of a land use decision is entitled to its
attorney fees if that party's decision also prevailed before the administrative agency and
in the superior court. RCW 4.84.370(1); Friends of Cedar Park 156 Wn. App. at 654-55.
As the prevailing parties, the City and Wal-Mart are entitled to an award of reasonable
attorney fees on appeal subject to compliance with RAP 18.1.
CONCLUSION
RNHG fails to demonstrate that the hearing examiner misconstrued the city code
or misapplied the law to the facts. Because RNHG has not met its burden of showing it
is entitled to relief from the hearing examiner's decision under the LUPA, we affirm.
WE CONCUR:
-24-
•
RICHARD D. JOHNSON,
Court AdminLmator/Clerk
May 14, 2012
Clayton Paul Graham
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1201 3rd Ave Ste 2200
Seattle, WA, 98101-3045
claytongraham@dwt.com
Claudia Macintosh Newman
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
1001 4th Ave Ste 3303
Seattle, WA, 98154-1167
newman@bnd-law.com
CASE #: 66874-9-1
11
The Court of Appeals
of the
State of Washington
Seattle
Charles Edward Maduell
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1201 3rd Ave Ste 2200
Seattle, WA, 98101-3045
chuckmadueil@dwt.com
Garmon Newsom, II
City of Renton
100 S 2nd St
PO Box 626
Renton, WA, 98057-0626
gnewsom@rentonwa.gov
DIVISION I
One Union Square
600 University Street
9810)-4)70
(206)464-7750
TDD: (206) 587-5545
Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, App- v. Pacland, et al., Res.
King County, Cause No- 10-2-31728-7 KNT
Counsel:
Enclosed is a copy of the opinion filed in the above -referenced appeal which states in part:
"Affirmed."
Counsel may file a motion for reconsideration within 20 days of filing this opinion pursuant to
RAP 12.4(b)- If counsel does not wish to file a motion for reconsideration but does wish to
seek review by the Supreme Court, RAP 13.4(a) provides that if no motion for reconsideration
is made, a petition for review must be fled in this court within 30 days. The Supreme Court
has determined that a filing fee of $200 is required.
In accordance with RAP 14.4(a), a claim for costs by the prevailing party must be supported by
a cost bill filed and served within ten days after the filing of this opinion, or claim for costs will
be deemed waived.
Should counsel desire the opinion to be published by the Reporter of Decisions, a motion to
publish should be served and filed within 20 days of the date of fling the opinion, as provided
by RAP 12.3 (e).
Sincerely,
Richard D. Johnson
Court Administrator/Clerk
twg
Enclosure
c: The Honorable Brian D. Gain
R
7
Denis Law
Mayor
August 17, 2010
Renton Neighbors for Health Growth.
c/o Cindy Wheeler
425 SW 5th PI.
Renton, WA 98057
r City of ;
rO
City Clerk - Bonnie I.Walton
Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan; LUA-10-009, SA -H, ECF
743 Rainier Ave. S.
Dear Ms. Wheeler:
At the regular Council meeting of August 16, 2010, the Renton City Council adopted the
recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee affirming the decision of
the Hearing Examiner. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed.
For additional information or assistance, contact City Clerk Bonnie Walton.
Sincerely,
a. a")
Jason A. Seth
Deputy City Clerk
Enclosure
cc: Mayor Denis Law
Council President Don Persson
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Parties of Record (26)
1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
0 . AIPPROVED BY
PLANNING $e DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE REPORT Da 4L&L/0
August 16, 2010
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Appeal
I_UA-10-009 SA -H, ECF
(Referred July 12, 2010)
The Planning & Development Committee recommends that the full Council find that the
Hearing Examiner committed no errors of fact or law in this matter and that his decision be
affirmed.
Terri Briere, C air
{
King Parker, Vice -Chair
Rich Zwicker, '4
lz occd L l,r ✓�P�yr��i s
rMcCullough
40jeff
4P
Osagie
Jack
Chambers
USunobun
McCullough & Hill
PACLAND
Larry D. Craighead Architects
701 5th Avenue, Ste. 7220
1505 Westland Ave N., Ste. 305
211 N Record Street, Ste. 222
Seattle, WA 98104
Seattle, WA 98109
Dallas, TX 75202
Peter Bonnell
Jeremy Smith, Manager
Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Mgr.
Bonnell Family LLC
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
10047 Main Street, Ste. 509
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Bellevue, WA 98004
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Huy Tran, Asst. Mgr
Sophorn Chan, Assistant
Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods
Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics
Brandi Hansen, Mgr. Automotive
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Sierra Schavrien, ICS Associate
Mark Goodman
Tauasi Paaga, HR
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Nancy Chase, Dept. Manager
William Carey, Jr., Safety Team
Francis Canapi
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Cheryl Harrelson
Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper
Levan Dept. Manager
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr.
Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr.
Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Supv.
ndShift
2
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv.
Claudia M. Newman
Walmart #2516
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
743 Rainier Ave S
1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3303
Renton, WA 98057
Seattle, WA 98154
August 16, 2010 i Renton City Council Minutes * Page 254
Finding 14 should be amended to read. "The tree inventory showed 101
significant trees on the subject site. Code requires the retention of 25 trees
whereas the applicant proposes retaining 24 trees. The replacement ratio
is six (6) trees for each one removed that should have been retained. Six
new trees would be planted mainly in the open space corridors."
♦ Finding 16 should be amended by adding a sentence that reads: 'The
revised plan submitted with the request for reconsideration would move
this open space area to the western portion of Lot 12, adjacent to lots in
the Geneva Court Plat."
♦ Finding 29 should be renumbered as Finding 19, and should be amended to
read: "The revised plan submitted with the request for reconsideration
substantially reduced the wall to approximately 6 - 8 feet in height and
moved the location of the wall away from the Geneva Court property
lines."
i Conclusion 1 should be amended to read: "The Wilson Park Preliminary
Plat with Lot 12 designed as proposed in the Applicant's request for
reconsideration appears to serve the public use and interest."
♦ Conclusion 2 should be amended by substituting the word "twelve" for the
word "eleven" when referring to the number of lots in the preliminary plat.
♦ Conclusion 5 should be stricken in its entirety.
♦ The Recommendation section should be altered by changing the
introductory sentence to read: "The City Council should approve a TWELVE
LOT plat of the subject site subject to the following conditions:"
♦ Recommendation 3 should be amended by substituting the following
language for the first sentence thereof: "A Native Growth Protection
Easement (NGPE) should be recorded over the western portion of proposed
Lot 12, as shown in the revised plan submitted with the request for
reconsideration, and Tracks B, C and D." The remainder of
Recommendation 3 should remain as drafted.
♦ Recommendation 5 should be amended to read: "The applicant shall
establish a Homeowners' Association for the maintenance of the NGPE and
the stormwater vault and each home shall have an undivided interest in the
western retaining wall and the retaining walls associated with the road.
The appropriate documents shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Division project manager prior to the recording of the final plat."
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Appeal: Wal-Mart Expansion
Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report
Site Plan, Renton Neighbors
i recommending that the full Council find that the Hearing Examiner committed
for Healthy Growth, 5A-10-009
. no errors of fact or law in this matter and that his decision be affirmed.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
0 APPROVED BY
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE REPORT Date -_48/L/ znl ?
August 16, 2010
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Appeal
LUA-10-009 SA -H, ECF
(Referred July 12, 2010)
The Planning & Development Committee recommends that the full Council find that the
Hearing Examiner committed no errors of fact or law in this matter and that his decision be
affirmed.
Terri Briere, C air
King Parker, Vice -Chair
�L�3P ��rl2C��t
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FILE NO. LUA 10-009
CITY CF RENTON
JUL 2 9 2010
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
l/la /eyal mess-- '
/a , SO
Pfanni'n1 4n
-Devcl opmm[
Comffidtee� (3)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
L� I_► ! li�� �]7iI�C��►I
Petitioner Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth's ("RNHG") filed an appeal of the
fHearing Examiner's approval of the site plan application submitted by PacLand to construct an
additional 16,000 square feet to an existing Wal-Mart store in the City of Renton ("Project").
I Although it had ample opportunity to do so, RNHG failed to comment and appear in the Project
I approval process until after the opportunities for public comment had been closed. For example,
I RNHG failed to submit comments during the Project's SEPA process. RNHG failed to appeal the I
SEPA determination. RNHG failed to comment during the site plan approval process. RNHG
I failed to appear at the site plan approval hearing. Instead, after the close of the public process,
I RNHG filed a motion for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, which the Hearing
Examiner properly denied. RNHG followed with this appeal to the City Council. As with its
I motion for reconsideration, RNHG's appeal to the City Council is baseless and without support
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page I of 17
MCCUI3AUGH HILL. P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
from the facts or the municipal code. The appeal fails to meet the requisite appeal criteria. The
City Council must deny RNHG's untimely and baseless appeal.
H. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
A. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG has failed to meet its
burden of proof in this appeal?
B. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when the record contains no evidence
of RNHG's standing required to appeal to the City Council, and RNHG therefore
lacks standing in this matter?
C. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG's failure to participate in
the hearing constitutes a failure to exhaust its administrative remedies and RNHG's
arguments should be considered waived?
D. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG failed to appeal the SEPA
determination and is therefore barred from raising SEPA issues such as traffic?
E. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when there is absolutely no evidence in
the record that the Examiner's finding regarding traffic issues was in error?
F. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG is improperly attempting
to introduce new evidence into the record, which is strictly prohibited by RMC 4-8-
110.F.5?
G. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the record lacks any support of RNHG's
allegations regarding design review, but instead supports the fact that the Examiner
correctly applied the design guidelines to the Project?
H. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the Project complies with the design
guidelines regarding site design and building location, which trump specific setback
requirements?
I. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the Renton Municipal Code specifically
allows the Examiner the authority to approve expansions of "nonconforming"
structures through the design review process?
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 2 of 17
McCuLLOUGH HILL, P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
n
CITY OF RENTON
JUL 2 9 2010
RECEIVED
CITY CLERICS OFFICE
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON
IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S
FILE NO. LUA 10-009 RESPONSE BRIEF
I, Jessica Clawson, Declare:
1. 1 am an attorney with McCullough Hill, P.S., which represents the applicant in
this appeal. 1 am competent to testify and make this declaration based on my personal
knowledge.
2. Attached as Exhibit I to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Staff
Report submitted at the public hearing for the site plan approval -
3. Attached as Exhibit 2 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued by the City of Renton for the
Wal-Mart project. Project Number 3009833.
4. Attached as Exhibit 3 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Hearing
Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart site plan approval.
DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN
SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S
RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 1 of 2
McCULLOUGH HILL. PS
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, Washington 98104-7042
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Attached as Exhibit 4 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Hearing
Examiner's decision on reconsideration denying RNHG's request for reconsideration.
6. Attached as Exhibit 5 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the
applicant's response to RNHG's request for reconsideration.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
f 4,
DATED at Seattle, Washington, this day of July, 2010.
Jesse a lawson
DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN
SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S
RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 2 of 2
McCULLOUGH HILL. PS
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, Washington 98104-7042
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
CITY OF RENTON
JUL 2 9 2010
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
FILE NO. LUA 10-009
1, JESSICA CLAWSON, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington, declare as follows:
I am an attorney with McCullough Hill, PS, attorneys for PacLand, and Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., applicant. On the date indicated below, I caused the copies of the APPLICANT'S
RESPONSE BRIEF, DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF, and this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE to be served via e-
mail and messenger service on:
CLAUDIA NEWMAN
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
1001 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 3303
SEATTLE, WA 98154
I //
FIA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 1 of 2
LAW AL-MART1Rentan%Qty C•oundl appea1WwHcate of SeNce0l .Uoc
McCullough Hill, PS
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, Washington 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
And by e-mail and U.S. Mail on:
LARRY WARREN
RENTON CITY ATTORNEY
P.Q. Bax 626
RENTON, WA 98057
DATED t day of July, 2010, at Seattle, Washington.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 2 of 2
UWAL-MARTRanim%City Council appeaRGeMfieshe of Senrice0l.doc
n
SSICA AWSON
McCullough Hill, PS
701 .Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, Washington 98104
206.8123388
206.812.3389 fax
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FILE NO. LUA 10-009
CITY 0,- NTON
CITY CLQ KIS OFFICE
Via le yal mess-_ i
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth's ("RNHG") filed an appeal of the
Hearing Examiner's approval of the site plan application submitted by PacLand to construct an
additional 16,000 square feet to an existing Wal-Mart store in the City of Renton ("Project").
Although it had ample opportunity to do so, RNHG failed to comment and appear in the Project
approval process until after the opportunities for public comment had been closed. For example,
RNHG failed to submit comments during the Project's SEPA process. RNHG failed to appeal the
SEPA determination. RNHG failed to comment during the site plan approval process. RNHG
failed to appear at the site plan approval hearing. Instead, after the close of the public process,
RNHG filed a motion for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, which the Hearing
Examiner properly denied. RNHG followed with this appeal to the City Council. As with its
motion for reconsideration, RNHG's appeal to the City Council is baseless and without support
McCULLoum HILL. P.S.
Page I of 17
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Page Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206,812,3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
from the facts or the municipal code. The appeal fails to meet the requisite appeal criteria. The
City Council must deny RNHG's untimely and baseless appeal.
II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
A. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG has failed to meet its
burden of proof in this appeal?
B. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when the record contains no evidence
of RNHG's standing required to appeal to the City Council, and RNHG therefore
lacks standing in this matter?
C. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG's failure to participate in
the hearing constitutes a failure to exhaust its administrative remedies and RNHG's
arguments should be considered waived?
D. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG failed to appeal the SEPA
determination and is therefore barred from raising SEPA issues such as traffic?
E. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when there is absolutely no evidence in
the record that the Examiner's finding regarding traffic issues was in error?
F. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG is improperly attempting
to introduce new evidence into the record, which is strictly prohibited by RMC 4-5-
110.F.5?
G. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the record lacks any support of RNHG's
allegations regarding design review, but instead supports the fact that the Examiner
correctly applied the design guidelines to the Project?
H. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the Project complies with the design
guidelines regarding site design and building location, which trump specific setback
requirements?
1. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the Renton Municipal Code specifically
allows the Examiner the authority to approve expansions of "nonconforming"
structures through the design review process?
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 2 of 17
MCCULLOUGH HILL, P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2 An application for site plan review was filed for the Project on February 8, 2010.
3
The Project would add 16,000 square feet to the existing Wal-Mart store located at 743 Rainier
4
5 Avenue South. Clawson Declaration, Ex. 1 (Staff Report). The Project would also reduce the
6 existing Garden Center by 4,000 square feet and would add 127 parking stalls. Id. The Project
7 site is located within the Commercial Arterial zone, and is within Urban Design District `D'. The
s
Project would not alter existing access points. Id.
9
The Project required environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy
10
11 Act ("SEPA"). In the City of Renton ("City"), environmental review is conducted separately and
12 prior to site plan review by the City's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC"). The
13 environmental review includes review of the traffic impacts of the Project, and imposition of
14
mitigation related to those impacts. To review the traffic impacts, the ERC requested that the
15
lb applicant submit a Transportation Impact Study ("TIS") to determine, among other things, the
17 number of trips that are expected to be generated by the Project. Clawson Decl., Ex. 2 (MDNS).
18 The City's Development Services Division reviewed the TIS submitted by the applicant and
19
approved it. The ERC reviewed the TIS, including the trip generation information, and
20
21 determined that to mitigate the number of trips generated, the Project would need to pay an
22 estimated $45,600 in transportation impact fees. These fees are considered to fully mitigate the
23 transportation impacts from the Project. Id.
24 Following its environmental review, the ERC issued a Mitigated Determination of
25
Nonsignficance ("MDNS") on March 25, 2010, which imposed the $46,500 transportation impact
26
27 fee. RNHG did not continent on the MDNS, which was properly noticed. The MDNS is an
28McCuLwuGH HILL, P.S.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 3 of 17 701 Fifth ..venue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r
•
I appealable decision; if there had been an appeal, it would have been heard by the Hearing
Examiner in a public hearing consolidated with the site plan hearing. RMC 4-9-110.E. The
MDNS appeal deadline was April 16, 2010. RNHG did not appeal the MDNS. The unappealed
MDNS became final on April 17, 2010.
On April 27, 2010, the Hearing Examiner held the required public hearing for the site plan
application. Clawson Decl., Ex. 3 (Hearing Examiner Decision). No continent letters were
received by RNHG. RNHG did not appear at the hearing. In fact, no opposition from the public
was received by the City regarding the Project. Ex. 3 (See Finding 5). Instead, staff entered into
the hearing record several letters in support of the Project, and a petition that demonstrated
community support for the Project. Id.
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, the Hearing Examiner approved the
Project on May 13, 2010. Clawson Decl., Ex. 3. After its long silence, RNHG finally surfaced,
and filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner on May 27, 2010. Clawson
Decl. Ex 4 (Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration). Wal-Mart filed a response to the
Motion on June 4, 2010. Clawson Decl. Ex. 5 (Applicant's Response to Reconsideration). After
weighing the arguments and reviewing the evidence before hin-t, the Examiner properly denied
RNHG's motion for reconsideration. Clawson Decl. Ex. 4. RNHG then appealed the Hearing
Examiner's initial decision to the City Council.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. Standard of Review and Limitations on Council's Authority.
Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") 4-8-140.F limits the authority of the City Council in this
quasi-judicial appeal hearing. The City Council is limited to reviewing the record that was
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 4 of 17
MCCULLOUGH HILL. P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
reviewed by the Examiner, unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the
evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner.
RMC 4-8-100.F.5. Otherwise, the City Council must presume that the "record before the City
Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner." Id.
The RMC also provides a substantial burden ofproof that the appellant must overcome in
order to overturn the Examiner's decision. In order to overturn the Examiner's decision., the
appellant must overcome its burden to show that a "substantial error in law or fact exists in the
record." RMC 4-8-100-F.8. The burden ofproof to prove such a substantial error lies with the
appellant, and any material findings "shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record."
RMC 4-8-100.F.9. Substantial evidence is "a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-
minded person of the truth or correctness" of the decision. Schofield, supra, 96 Wn. App. 581,
980 P.2d at 280.
RNHG fails both to acknowledge and to meet his burden of proof in this matter. The City
Council must reject this appeal.
B. RNHG lacks the standing required to appeal this matter; its appeal must be denied.
The RMC requires an appellant to have standing in order to appeal the Hearing
Examiner's decision to the City Council. RMC 4-8-100.F.1 limits standing to "any interested
Party aggrieved".
However, as stated above, the City Council is required to limit its review of the appeal to
the record that was before the Hearing Examiner. RNHG failed to submit any comment letters
and failed to appear at the hearing. As a result, the record before the Hearing Examiner lacks any
evidence that RNHG was "aggrieved." Thus, the record lacks any evidence that RNHG was
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 5 of 17
MCCuLLOUGH HILL. P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
aggrieved, and lacks any evidence that RNHG has standing. The City Council must deny
RNHG's appeal, as RNHG lacks standing to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision.
C. RNHG failed to appear at the public hearing, and failed to appeal the MDNS. It
therefore failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and its arguments must be
considered waived.
As stated above, RNHG failed to appear at the public hearing. It also failed to appeal the
City's MDNS. RNHG's absence in the administrative review process for the Project constitutes a
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It also constitutes a waiver of its arguments now
raised here. A party may waive its right to argue issues when it fails to appeal a matter, or fails to
raise an argument at the proper time. Peste v. Mason County, 133 Wn. App. 456, 468-469, 136
P.3d 140 (2006); Had RNHG participated in the public hearing before the Examiner, or appealed
the MDNS, it could have raised these arguments at the proper time, and the Hearing Examiner
would have considered them at the public hearing. Instead, RNHG has chosen to raise its
arguments to the City Council, a body without fact-finding authority. These arguments have been
raised too late. They must be considered to be waived, and RNHG failed to exhaust its
administrative remedies.
D. RNHG failed to appeal the MDNS and it is therefore barred from raising issues
related to traffic, which was reviewed under the MDNS.
For unexplained reasons, RNHG failed to appeal the City's MDNS, which reviewed the
Project's traffic impacts and imposed traffic impact fees to mitigate the Project's traffic impacts,
even though RNHG now seeks to complain to the City Council about traffic issues relating to the
Project. Because it failed to timely appeal the MDNS, which reviewed the Project's traffic
impacts and determined they were not significant, RNHG is now attempting to raise issues related
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 6 of 17
MCCuu,ou H HILL, P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
to traffic through its site pian appeal. The RMC specifically prohibits such an appeal. The City
Council must deny RNHG's appeal.
The Project applicant submitted a Transportation Impact Study ("TIS") which reviewed
the Project's trip generation and other transportation impacts. The TIS was approved by the
City's Development Services Division as supporting the estimate for 608 additional trips being
generated by the Project. Following review of the TIS, the City's Environmental Review
Committee ("ERC") determined that the trip generation was appropriate, and that the appropriate
mitigation for the Project's transportation impacts was the payment of a Transportation
Mitigation Fee estimated at $45,600. Ex. 2, p. 5. The ERC incorporated this mitigation fee as a
condition of the MDNS, which was issued on March 25, 2010.
The appeal deadline for the MDNS, which addressed traffic issues, was April 16, 2010.
Ex. 2, p. 1. RNHG failed to comment on the MDNS. It failed to appeal the MDNS. RNHG
cannot now attempt to appeal traffic issues, which were reviewed only by the MDNS, as its
appeal is untimely. RMC 4-8-100.E.4.a ("Appeals of a final environmental determination under
the Renton environmental review regulations shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of publication
of notice of such determination. "). 1 The City Council must deny RNHG's appeal regarding traffic
issues, as these issues should have been addressed in an appeal of the MDNS. RNHG failed to
file such an appeal, and these issues must be rejected.
I Even if RNHG had filed a timely appeal of the MDNS (which it did not), it nevertheless lacked standing
to file such an appeal, just as it lacks standing to file this appeal. The record contains no evidence of RNHG's
standing regarding the MDNS or environmental issues. RMC 4-8-100.E.3.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 7 of 17
McCuLwuGH HILL, P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. The City Council must reject RNHG's improper attempt to introduce evidence into
the record which is strictly prohibited by RMC 4-8-11O.F.5.
In its opening brief, RNHG has improperly attempted to introduce new evidence into this
proceeding by stating what its traffic person "would" testify about, if he or she were allowed to
testify. RNHG Brief, p. 14. RMC strictly limits the City Council's review on appeal to the record
that was before the Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-8-110.17.5 states:
No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or
testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party
offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the
time of the hearing before the Examiner—In the absence ... of an order by the City Council
authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or
additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the
record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing
Examiner.
The City Council must strike RNHG's attempt to introduce new evidence through its brief. First,
RNHG did not even try to assert a reason as to why its traffic consultant was not reasonably
available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. In fact, it is due to RNHG's negligence
that its asserted evidence was not heard by the Hearing Examiner—RNHG failed to participate in
the Hearing Examiner hearing, despite the fact that it was a public hearing which was properly
noticed. Second, even if RNHG could make a showing that its additional information was not
reasonably available at the time of the Hearing Examiner hearing (which it cannot), the City
Council would have to make a finding saying so, and would have to remand the matter to the
Hearing Examiner for additional fact finding. Thus, RNHG's attempt to introduce new evidence
through its brief is untimely and improper under the RMC. The inclusion of new evidence into the
record must not be allowed. The City Council must reject RNHG's improper effort to introduce
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 8 of 17
MCCULLOUGH HILL, P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
I extra -record material in this closed -record proceeding. The additional RNHG material should be
disregarded and stricken by the City Council.
F. Even if RNHG could raise claims regarding traffic, they must be denied.
RNHG is barred from raising claims regarding traffic, which was reviewed under the
MDNS. However, even if RNHG could raise traffic issues, these issues must be denied for two
reasons: first, there is no evidence in the record to support RNHG's claims. Second, all evidence
in the record supports the Hearing Examiner's finding that RMC 4-9-200.E. Lf was met.
RNHG's claims must be denied.
RMC 4-9-200.E.1 outlines the general review criteria for both master plan and site plan
I review. Criterion i f includes "safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation." RMC
4-9-200.E. IS The Hearing Examiner properly made findings and conclusions regarding criterion
f. First, Finding 23 states the approximate trip generation rate, and states that the "ERC imposed
a mitigated fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips." Ex. 1, p. 23. Second,
Conclusion 1 states that "the proposed use satisfies [criterion f] and other particulars of the
ordinance." Ex. 1, p. 16.
Here, all substantial evidence in the record supports the Examiner's finding and conclusion I
regarding traffic. RNHG has improperly attempted to insert new evidence into the existing record j
simply because the record includes no evidence to support RNHG's claims regarding traffic.
RNHG alleges that the Examiner's decision was incorrect because it allegedly "failed to take
existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration." RNHG Brief, p. 14. RNHG challenges
the Examiner's finding regarding traffic as an error of fact. In order to prove that the Examiner's
finding was in error, RNHG must point to substantial evidence in the record supporting its claim.
MCCULLOUGH HILL P.S.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF 701 FifthAvenue, Suite 7220
Page 9 of 17 Seattle, WA 98144
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E
RMC 4-8-100.F.9. Not only does the record lack any evidence to support RNHG's claim,
RNHG's allegations are patently false. RNHG cannot meet its burden here to challenge the
Examiner's finding regarding traffic issues, as no evidence in the record exists to support its
claims, despite its attempt to improperly bring extra -record evidence into this proceeding.
RNHG's allegation regarding traffic issues was not only untimely, but it is also not supported by
the record. It must be denied.
G. The record lacks any support of RNHG's allegations regarding design review, and
the Examiner correctly applied the design guidelines to the Project; the City Council
must reject this claim.
RNHG has alleged that the Project does not comply with the City's Design District `D'
regulations. RNHG has misrepresented the code regarding the design guidelines, and its
allegation is without factual or legal support. RNHG is unable to meet its burden of proof
regarding this allegation, and it must be rejected.
First, as with all of RNHG's allegations, RNHG failed to submit any evidence into the
hearing record that the Project does not comply with the staffs interpretation of the design
guidelines. As noted, this is because RNHG failed to appear at the site plan review hearing before
the Hearing Examiner. To overcome its burden of proof, RNHG must cite to substantial evidence
in the record. RMC 4-8-100.F.9. It cannot do so here. The City Council must reject RNHG's
claim, as it is without support of evidence in the record.
Second, RNHG fails to address the intent of the design review guidelines, which are
clearly consistent with the Examiner's application of the guidelines to the Project. The guidelines
specifically state that they are intended to allow flexibility in project design. RMC 4-3-100.A.2.
("These standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met. In order to
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 10 of 17
MCCULLOUGH HILL�P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element.") The guidelines grant the
decisionmaker wide discretion in determining compliance with the guidelines, and (contrary to
RNHG's assertion) do not require strict compliance with the guidelines:
When the Administrator... or designee has determined that the proposed manner of
meeting the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the
applicant shall not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with
the guideline that has been approved.
RMC 4-8-100.G.2.b. The guidelines grant the decisionmaker the authority to exercise further
flexibility in applying the design review guidelines:
The [decisionmaker] shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny
proposals based on the provisions of the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the
[decisionmaker] will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the
overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design
alternative s in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations.
RMC 4-3-100.D.2. RNHG conveniently fails to address these Code provisions in its appeal.
The Examiner correctly applied RMC 4-3-100.D.2 by allowing some flexibility, and by
requiring the imposition of several design review conditions, in order to create a better -designed
Project. See Clawson Deet. Ex. 1 (Conclusions 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12; Conditions 8, 9, 10, 11). In
particular, the Examiner required the following design elements to be included in the Project, to
better meet the intent of the design guidelines:
Required existing larger trees to be retained, in addition to adding landscaping islands in
the parking lot; buffer parking areas from abutting properties with additional landscape
buffers, including a 55 -foot wide perimeter landscaped area along Rainier Avenue, and a
20 -foot wide landscaped area along SW 7`h Street. Additional landscaping will exceed
code requirements. (Ex. 1, pp. 9-10).
• Require Project to submit revised elevations for northern fagade to create more visual
interest (Ex. 1, p. 13).
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 11 of 17
MCCULLOUGH HILL, P.S.
701 Fifth avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
J
• Rather than propose windows along the eastern facade, which would not be feasible,
Project shall extend parapets, include ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture, and large
planter box to include human scale elements and pedestrian interest. The Project is
required to provide additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area near the
entryway which shall include additional glazing, artwork, or planting beds. (Ex. 1, p. 14)
The Examiner further acknowledged that he was allowing flexibility in the application of
design review standards:
In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District
Guidelines that are applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and
except as noted or highlighted in this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are
adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in most cases the applicant's modest
expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has justified why their
project may not precisely meet some of the standards.
Ex. 1, p. 17.
In sum, RNHG's allegations regarding design review are without merit. The intent of the
design guidelines is to allow flexibility in design and to review a project on an individual basis,
rather than requiring a strict standard. RMC 4-3-100.D.2; 4-3-100.G.2.b. RNHG has not
cited to substantial evidence in the record proving its claim. Its claim must be rejected.
H. The Hearing Examiner properly approved the Project in the proposed location.
RNHG has asserted that the Project does not comply with the setback requirements of the
CA zone. RNHG fails to understand that design guidelines trump the strict setback requirements
of the CA zone, and allow expansions of existing buildings under the design guidelines. RNHG's
claim must be rejected.
As stated above, chapter RMC 4-3 includes a set of Urban Design Overlay regulations.
These regulations are designed to "implement policies established in the Land Use and
Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan." RMC 4-3-100.A.1. As
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 12 of 17
MCCULLOUGH HILL P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 0
overlay regulations, they are applied independently of the other development regulations of the
Code, which they supersede. These overlay regulations govern:
a. Site design and building location;
b. Parking and vehicular access;
c. Pedestrian environment;
d. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space;
e. Building Architectural Design;
f. Signage;
g. Lighting.
RMC 4-3-100.A.I (emphasis added). As already stated, the application of the Urban Design
Overlay Regulations is not intended under the Code to be prescriptive, but rather to foster flexible
solutions that lead to improved design. Specifically:
2. This Section lists elements that are required to be included in all development in
the zones stated in subsection B 1 of this Section. Each element includes an intent
statement, standards, and guidelines. In order to provide predictability, standards are
provided. These standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be
met. In order to provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element. These
guidelines and the intent statement provide direction for those who seek to meet the
r uired element in a manner that is different from the standards.
b. When the [decisionmaker] has determined that the proposed manner of
meeting the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the
applicant shall not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with
the guideline that has been approved.
(emphasis added). RMC 4-5-100.G.2.b. Thus, the Examiner must review the proposed Project
against the standards, guidelines, and intent statement of each design element, in order to
I determine compliance with the Urban Design Overlay Regulations.
In addition, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations apply specifically to both expansions of
nonconforming structures, and Big Box Retail uses:
B. APPLICABILITY AND CONFLICTS:
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 13 of 17
MCCULLOUGH HILL P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Applicability:
a. The following development activities shall be required to comply with
the provisions of this Section:
i. All subdivisions including short plats;
ii. All new structures;
iii. Conversion of vacant land (e.g., to parking or storage lots);
iv. Conversion of a residential use to a nonresidential use;
v. Alterations enlargements and/or restorations ofnonconformin
structures vursuant to RMC 4-1-050.
b. Any of the activities listed in subsection B. La of this Section and
occurring within the following overlay areas or zone shall be required to comply
with the provisions of this section. Big box retail as outlined below shall also be
r wired to comply with the revisions of this section.
(emphasis added). RMC 4-3-100.B.1.
Finally, the code specifically states that when a conflict exists between the Urban Design
Overlay Regulations and the Renton Municipal Code, the design regulations shall govern:
2. Conflicts: Where there are conflicts between the design regulations of this
Section, and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the regulations of this
Section shallrp evail.
(emphasis added) RMC 4-3-100.B.2. Thus, in summary, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations
encourage the flexible application of design solutions to Project. The Urban Design Regulations
apply to both Big Box retail, and to nonconforming structures. The Urban Design Regulations
trump the Renton Municipal Code in the case of a conflict.
Here, the Examiner properly applied the design regulations to the Project site regarding
the setback issue. Conclusion No. 3 of the Examiner's decision acknowledges that the Project
cannot be expected (given the small size of the expansion) to bring the Project building to within
15 feet of Rainier Avenue, which is what would be required under the CA zone's setback
requirements. Ex. 1. Conclusion No. 4 notes that the significant building setback works to ease
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 14 of 17
MCCULLOUGH HILL. P.S.
701 Fifth -Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, Wil 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 lax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the transition to neighboring uses. This conclusion is consistent with the intent of the Building
Location and Orientation provisions of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which state that
buildings should "ensure an appropriate transition between building, parking areas, and other land
uses," and that "careful siting and design treatment should be used to achieve a compatible
transition where buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk,
and scale." RMC 4-3-100.E.1. Both City staff and the Hearing Examiner properly determined
that the Project will better meet these standards, as the Project is proposed. Thus, while the
Project does not comply with the front setback standard set forth in the CA zone, the Hearing
Examiner properly determined that the Project better meets the design regulations, due to the
height bulk and scale of the building, with a larger setback and extensive landscaping, and
therefore that the plan as proposed should be approved. Ex. 1, Conclusion 4. RNHG's allegation
regarding the setback must be denied.
In addition, the Hearing Examiner properly applied the Urban Design Overlay Regulations
to the "nonconforming" structure. RNHG fails to read the code in its entirety regarding this issue;
its claims must be denied.
RNHG claims that RMC 4-10-050.A.4 prohibits the Project, as approved. RMC 4-10-
050.A.4 states:
A. Nonconforming structures—general: Any legally established building or structure may
remain, although such structure does not conform with the provisions of the Renton
Municipal Code, provided the following conditions are met:
4. Enlargement: The structure shall not be enlarged unless the enlargement is
conforming...
RNHG fails to understand that this code section does not apply to the Project. The Urban
Design Overlay Regulations, as stated above, overlay and supersede the provisions of the Renton
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 15 of 17
MCCULLOUGH „HILL, P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
Municipal Code, including the nonconforming provisions. The Urban Design Overlay Regulations
delegate to the Examiner the authority to approve expansions of nonconforming structures
through the design review process. (See 4-3-1003.1: "The following development activities shall
be required to comply with [the design regulations]: Alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations
of nonconforming structures..."). The Urban Design Overlay Regulations supercede all
conflicting sections of the Renton Municipal Code. See RMC 4-3-100.B.2. Thus, to the extent
that the existing building could be considered to be "nonconforming," the Urban Design Overlay
Regulations specifically authorize the Examiner to use the design review process to supersede the
other provisions of the code, including RMC 4-10-050.A.4.
Here, the City and the Examiner properly used the Design Review process to create a
"conforming" Project. The City and the Examiner properly determined that while the Project, in
some cases, did not precisely meet some of the standards, the Project "meets the guidelines and
the minimum standards, and has justified why [the Project] may not precisely meet some of the
standards." Ex. 1, Conclusion 10. In addition, the Examiner properly found that while the Project
did not meet the CA zone's front setback standard, application of Design Regulations, which
allow flexibility and supersede the CA zone standards, meet the code requirements as a whole.
Ex. 1, Conclusion 3, Ex. 4. Thus, the Examiner has properly confirmed that the Project is not
nonconforming, because it complies with the Design Regulations, which supersede the CA zone
setback requirements. As such, RMC 4-10-050.A.4 does not apply to the Project, because
compliance with the Design Review regulations make the Project conforming to the Renton
Municipal Code. RNHG's appeal must be rejected.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Page 16 of 17
MCCvLLOUGH HILL P.S.
701 Fifth Avcnue, Suite 7220
Seattle, W'. 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
V. CONCLUSION
RNHG fails to meet its burden of showing that substantial evidence exists in the record to
Iprove its claims. Because it failed to appeal the MDNS, and failed to participate in the public
hearing, it has taken to improperly attempting to amend the record through uncited assertions
regarding traffic issues in its brief. Not only is RNHG barred from raising traffic issues at this
time, because it failed to appeal the MDNS, but it is also barred from inserting new evidence into
the record when it could easily have participated in the public hearing. In addition, RNHG fails to
correctly read the Renton Municipal Code regarding the Design Review overlay. As the Hearing
Examiner properly found in both his initial decision, and his decision on reconsideration, the
design review regulations allow flexibility in design, and supercede the underlying code.
RNHG has failed to meet its burden here. The City Council must deny its appeal.
DATED this day of July, 2010.
28 JIMPLICANT'SRESPONSEBMEF
Page 17 of 17
MCCULLOUGH HILL, P.S.
By: �)' I'&
John . McCullough, WSBA #12740
Jessi M. Clawson, WSBA #36901
Attorneys for Applicant
MCCuLLoum HILL. P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FILE NO. LUA 10-009
I, Jessica Clawson, Declare:
0,;ITY OF RENTCN
JL'L 2 9 2010
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON
IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S
RESPONSE BRIEF
1. I and an attorney with McCullough Hill, P.S., which represents the applicant in
this appeal. I am competent to testify and make this declaration based on my personal
knowledge.
2. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Staff
Report submitted at the public hearing for the site plan approval.
3. Attached as Exhibit 2 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued by the City of Renton for the
Wal-Mart project. Project Number 3009833.
4. Attached as Exhibit 3 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Hearing
Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart site plan approval.
DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN
SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S
RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 1 of 2
McCULLOUGH HILL, PS
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, Washington 98104-7042
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
5. Attached as Exhibit 4 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Hearing
Examiner's decision on reconsideration denying RNHG's request for reconsideration.
6. Attached as Exhibit 5 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the
applicant's response to RNHG's request for reconsideration.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED at Seattle, Washington, this day of July, 2010.
Jess, a lawson
DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN
SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S
RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 2 of 2
McCULLOUGH HILL, PS
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, Washington 981047042
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT '
HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING
April 27, 2010
AGENDA
COMMENCING AT 9.00 AM,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL
The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which
they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner.
PROJECT NAME; Walmart Expansion
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square
feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The
applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of
4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate 16,000 square foot area used for
outdoor retail sales. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern
and eastern facades. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface- parking lot
with an expansion of the parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking
stalls; resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the
applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the
demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales,
HEX Agenda 4-27--10.doc
IN b±m
Hk
SEN
pip �� � H 0
ti
� I }EL�
aL_•.-
.�
W.
,w. -ti•ry •'♦ +; �- � }LOQ
111 j ;fit' ' � � "-a-d_ v,_•-�,. ., ti y
-�'• �::;�� ;.vim:. � � �.s=- =` =k.• ��`'�=-'�=�-:�� •`
L: i' � 1 - ° •.... r�: t= i•-. yW i� i�-. � � �[{g�. ".•�14'.} _ `•r�sn-��� °¢,i- �' 1L
at. I --� �,,.•,.,-t��?i=i•�n_--- +'m14Y. 1 x' _F °Y i? •- � x};' 1 I
i Ai
RL
I�N
ri VT
3 `k W
l 15t�r
�� Ids^ 3 • � 1i+
O°Kx - b�0i Ss ry iw-q�axAsaR+�l'"s�3 a[ a w +r: ATM��w,�4w=?watta
i
low
�G7 �
C
�4 Q
gr
W
J
aw
i
EU
pip �� � H 0
ti
� I }EL�
aL_•.-
.�
W.
,w. -ti•ry •'♦ +; �- � }LOQ
111 j ;fit' ' � � "-a-d_ v,_•-�,. ., ti y
-�'• �::;�� ;.vim:. � � �.s=- =` =k.• ��`'�=-'�=�-:�� •`
L: i' � 1 - ° •.... r�: t= i•-. yW i� i�-. � � �[{g�. ".•�14'.} _ `•r�sn-��� °¢,i- �' 1L
at. I --� �,,.•,.,-t��?i=i•�n_--- +'m14Y. 1 x' _F °Y i? •- � x};' 1 I
i Ai
RL
I�N
ri VT
3 `k W
l 15t�r
�� Ids^ 3 • � 1i+
O°Kx - b�0i Ss ry iw-q�axAsaR+�l'"s�3 a[ a w +r: ATM��w,�4w=?watta
gl x
� l Prig 1
e11
I .
rr
co
a
s
B is 'd d
$�
gl x
� l Prig 1
e11
I .
rr
co
1
�F 1
mix - nroz Yz wr bR'i1Q�va.�5q we t My gwd�A.,gmw�u\s
}
1
�F 1
mix - nroz Yz wr bR'i1Q�va.�5q we t My gwd�A.,gmw�u\s
0 0
i
ID
go
Ln
a
5
0 0
A
1-0
H
m
x
W
0
10
4
Q
tj
v
Denis Law , �lty Of S �,
Mayor
Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
March 25, 2010
Jeff Chambers, P.E.
Pacland
1505 Westlake Avenue N #305
Seattle, WA 98109
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD fSEPA) MEMERMINATION
Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Chambers:
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a
threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures.
Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the
Mitigation Measures.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00
p.m. on April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee
with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 10155 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-
17.0.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers
on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on April
27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the
applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will
be mailed to you prior to the hearing. if the Environmental Determination is appealed,
the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing.
Renton City Hall 6 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov
Jeff Chambers
March 25, 2010
Page 2 of 2
The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project
and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you
have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Roca] Timm
Ass date Planner
Enclosure
cc: Peter Bonneli - Bunnell Family LLC / owner(s)
C
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D th"ObZal
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
,ERG MEETING DATE:
March 22, 2010
Project Name:
Walmart Expansion
Owner:
Peter Bonnell; Bonneli Family, LLC; 10047 Main Street #509; Bellevue, WA 98004
Applicant/Contact:
Jeff Chambers; Pacland; 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste# 305; Seattle, WA 98109
File Number:
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Project Manager:
Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner
Project Summary:
The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental
(SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail
facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional
9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000
square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in
the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along
the northern facade with modifications to the eastern facade. The proposal
includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the
parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls
resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the
applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition
to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The
site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial
(CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within
Urban Design District D. Access for the proposal would continue to be provided
via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S/SR 167, Hardie Ave 5 and
5 Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
Project Location:
743 Rainier Ave S Site Area: 594,553 SF (13.6 ac)
STAFF
Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a
RECOMMENDATION:
Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M).
Project Location Map
ERC Report - Walmart Expansion
City of Renton Department of Community onomic Development Env ir ental Review Committee Report '
WALIVMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Report of March 22, 2010 Page 2 of 5
PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND
The applicant, PACLAN©, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the future construction of additions to the
Renton Walmart retail store. The expansion would increase the existing building by approximately 16,000 square
feet and decrease the existing garden center by approximately 4,000 square feet. The additions would be located
on the northern and eastern elevations and would create the opportunity to remodel the interior of the existing
store. The existing Walmart consists of an approximately 134,000 square foot building and a 9,000 square foot
Garden Center. The proposal also includes an expansion of the surface parking lot, along with additional
landscaping and improvements to drainage on-site as well as new fagade treatments along the northern elevation_
In addition to the Environmental Review, Site Plan Review before the Hearing Examiner has also been requested.
The subject property is located on the west side of Rainier Ave S/SR 167 between SW 7th St and 5 Grady Way. A
recently approved Short Plat (LUA09-158) increased the size of the project parcel from 9.9 acres to 13.6 acres. As
part of the short plat the applicant is proposing the demolition of the restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales,
currently sited on the north portion of the parcel. The property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium
industrial (IM) and located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) and Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use
designations.
The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, 74S surface parking stalls and a 4,701
square -foot Garden Center. The proposed project area is predominately paved surfaces with areas of gravel just
north of the existing store location. The amount of impervious area would be increased by the proposal from
515,257 square feet to 528,863 square feet. New landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and
within the surface parking lots. Some excavation of existing soil would be necessary for the areas of proposed
expansions. The volume of the cut would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards and 9,500 cubic yards would be
brought in for fill to be balanced onsite.
Access would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, S
Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/Sit 167. The proposed building would result in a lot Coverage of 25.3 percent. The
tallest point of the proposed additions would be the top of the parapet on the proposed trespa panel fagade
treatment at the center of the eastern facade; which would have a height of 32 feet and 4 inches from existing
grade. The proposed expansion, on the northern facade, would have a height of 21 feet and 4 inches at the tallest
point as measured from existing grade which matches the top of the existing parapet.
The applicant has requested an administrative modification in order to downsize the refuse and recycle area from
the required 2,325 square feet to 30 cubic yards, as they are proposing the use of a self contained compactor which
has been engineered for high volume usage. Staff has reviewed the request and issued a decision on the
modification along with the SEPA Determination below in order to run the appeal periods concurrently (Exhibit 7).
There are 99 trees located onsite of which 15 are proposed for removal. There are no known critical areas on or
nearth e site.
PARTTWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I
In compliance with RCW 43.2.10.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project
impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations.
A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials:
Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period.
B. Mitigation Measures
1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared
by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009.
ERC Report - WalmartExpansion
City of'Renton Department of Communitoconomic Development EnvWenfof Review Committee Report
WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Report of March 22, 2010 Page 3 of 6
2. The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report prepared by PACIAND, dated February
5, 2010, during project construction.
3. If pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration
study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City also reserves
the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven.
4. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the
applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the
requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work shall
recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
S. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior
to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00.
f. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52
per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00.
C. Exhibits
Exhibit 1
Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map
Exhibit 2
Site Pian
Exhibit 3
Landscape Plan
Exhibit 4:
North and South Elevations
Exhibit 5:
East and West Elevations
Exhibit 6:
Aerial Photo of Project Site
Exhibit 7:
Refuse and Recycle Modification Approval
D. Environmental Impacts
The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the
applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction
with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following
probable impacts:
1. Earth
Impacts: The site Is nearly level with average slopes at approximately 3 percent. The steepest slope on site
is located in a landscape area and is approximately 20 percent. The site consists of native fine-grained soils
which are generally soft to soft to medium stiff and compressible, and native granular soils which range
from loose to very dense. Grading on the project site would be minimal and limited to the north and east
sides of the existing store. Earthwork quantities would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards of fill and 9,500
cubic yards of haul -out. Following development impervious surface coverage will be approximately 89%.
A Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009, was submitted with the
project application. The recommendations in the report are based on an examination of material that
occurred in two phases. The preliminary subsurface evaluation consisted of 12 borings and the final
evaluation consisted of 40 borings. All borings ranged in depth from 11 l feet to 54 feet below existing site
grades.
The report includes design recommendations for site preparation and grading, excavation, foundation
support, slab -on -grade floors, drainage and pavements. The applicant is proposing to comply with the
recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. In
order to limit impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends, as a mitigation
measure, that project construction comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report
prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009.
ERC Report - Walmort Expansion
City of Renton Department of Community nomic Development Envirc&nta) Review Committee Report
WALMART EXPANSION _ LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Report of March 22, 2010 Page 4 of 6
Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the
geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009.
Nexus: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-4060; SEPA Environmental Regulations
2. Water
a. Storm Water
Impacts: The project site is located within the Black River drainage basin of the Duwamish-Green River
Drainage watershed. The applicant submitted a "Technical Information Report," prepared by PACLAND.
(dated February 5, 2010) as part of the application materials. The applicant is proposing the removal of
29,700 square foot gravel commercial pad located just north of the existing structure. It would be
replaced with the expansion of store, surface parking stalls, new landscaped areas and a new bioswale.
The existing parking area would not be significantly modified from its existing layout, but would include
an overlay and minimal landscape island relocations. According to the Drainage Report, the increase in
impervious area would be 14,544 square feet; from 514,319 to 528,863 square feet.
Existing stormwater runoff from the site flows towards multiple existing catch basins where it is collected
and discharged to the existing stormwater conveyance system. The water flows to an existing
biofiltration swale located in the northwestern portion of the site which was designed to treat the
existing parking lot areas. The bioswale provides treatment prior to the runoff being discharged to the
existing storm system in SW 7th Street.
As stated in the Technical Information Report, the proposed project improvements generate a 0-035 cfs
increase in the 100 -year peals flow rate. Because the post -developed peak flow is less than 0.5 cfs more
than the existing peak flow, the project is exempt from flow control requirements. Any offsite runoff that
currently flows onsite will continue to be conveyed via the existing storm system. The proposed
conveyance system has been designed to convey runoff for the new impervious surfaces. Additional
water quality treatment, in the form of a new bioswale is proposed, as the project would add more than
5,000 square feet of new pollution generating impervious surfaces.
The applicant is proposing to comply with the recommendations found in the Technical Information
Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 for both drainage and erosion control. In order to
limit drainage and erosion impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends the
applicant comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010
during project construction.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by
PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 during project construction.
Nexus; King County Surface Water Design Manual; SEPA Environmental Regulations
3. Environmental Health
a. Noise
Irnpacts: The Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009,
recommended the use of augercast piles in order to support the structure's foundation. In lieu of augercast
pile, the study indicates that the applicant could use small -diameter steel pipe piles in order to support the
structure. Noise and vibration impacts can be associated with pipe pile driving. Therefore staff
recommends, as a mitigation measure, if pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant
would be required to provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the day and hours of construction when
pipe piles are being driven.
Mitigation Measures: If the applicant uses pipe piles in order to support the proposed structure the
applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
FRC Report - Walmurt Expansion
City of Renton Department of Comm unit*conomic Development EnVi0ental Review Committee Report
WALMARTEXPAiVSiON LUA10-009, CCF, SA -H
Report of March 22, 2010 Page S of 6
permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles
are being driven.
Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations
4. Historic and Cultural Preservation
impacts: It is possible that archaeological artifacts or a historic site could be encountered during project
construction. This is due to the site's proximity to former archaeological discoveries. Should evidence of a
historic site be found during site development, work shall immediately cease and the Washington State of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation shall be contacted at (360) 586-3065. A survey shall be submitted
that conforms to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved
archaeologist.
In the event that cultural artifacts are found, work cannot recommence until approval is received from the
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Mitigation Measures: Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be
stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall
conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work
shall recommence when approval is received from the office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations
S. Transportation
Impacts: Access for the site would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts
along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. There are three full access points
along SW 71h St a full access along Hardie Ave SW; a right in/right out access point along Rainier Ave S/SR
167; and a full access point along SW Grady Way.
ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated by the Development Services Division and shall be
in compliance with ADA standards when construction occurs on the site. No other street improvements
would be required for the proposal.
It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system and is
anticipated to generate 608 additional daily trips. A Transportation Impact Study, prepared by the Transpo
Group (dated October 2009), was submitted by the applicant and was approved by the Development
Services Division. The traffic study supported the estimate for 608 additional daily trips. In order to mitigate
transportation impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure be placed on the project requiring a
Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The
fee, at $75 per trip for the 608 new daily trips anticipated, has been estimated. at $45,600.00 (608 trips x
75.00 = $45,600.00). This fee would be payable prior to issuance of the building permit.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new
net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00.
Nexus: Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution 3100; Ordinance 4489; SEPA Environmental Regulations
6. Fire & Police
Impacts: The Fire Prevention Bureau and the Police Department have indicated they have the ability to
provide service to the project provided required improvements are made and a Fire Impact Fee is assessed.
The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit.
The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00.
Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution 2895; SEPA Environmental Regulations
ERC Report - Walmort Expansion
City of Renton Department of Communitywonomic Development i:nvironmilol Review Committee Report
WALMART EKPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Report of March 22, 2010 Page 6 of 6
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their
comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant."
V Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report,
Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 PM, April 16, 2010.
Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing
at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be
obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057.
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action.
Because these nates are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions.
Planning:
1. RMC section 4-4-030.0.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Division.
Water:
1. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is based on the size of water meter needed to service the development.
The SDC 1s only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or
uti I ity permit_
2. The existing fire hydrants may need to be fitted with Stortz fittings to bring them up to current City code.
Sanitary Sewer:
1. The Wastewater System Development Charge is also based on the size of water meter needed to service the
development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a
construction or utility permit.
Surface Water:
1. The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area.
Minimums may apply, and this fee is payable with a construction or utility permit.
Transportation:
1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip, as calculated by the ITE manual. Fees are due
with the building permit for all commercial structures. A traffic study supporting 608 daily trips was submitted.
2. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated and in compliance when construction occurs on the site.
Miscellaneous:
1. Construction pian indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for
approval prior to any permit being issued.
2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow
devices will be required..
3. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.
4. A construction permit is required for any utility work. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two
copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application, and an appropriate fee shall be submitted to the
City hall sixth floor counter.
ERC Report - Walmort Expansion.doc
V F3 -18 T23N RSE W 112 qw
i iM C4
sw m m s+aa
I I
3 !
C4
-- _ Im
Im S Wa
7t I
CA I C-,, .. G4 r-
��'�' �4—I ILII
arm
cv co
- - Flm'
�F--J
im
l 1 SW t6T 4 ' SWIM.
N-
�7 €
rn�a
A
cd
ca\`
sw zsp si -
c
s
c0
w
' I a• li:l
N
!L
EXHIBIT 1
1113 — 30 T23N R5E W 112
G3
0 20D 4W � 19 T23N R5E W 112
�Iri t cj_r� 1:4,800
= "__ SM9
,YI
I
€
I!
5
rM f
V F3 -18 T23N RSE W 112 qw
i iM C4
sw m m s+aa
I I
3 !
C4
-- _ Im
Im S Wa
7t I
CA I C-,, .. G4 r-
��'�' �4—I ILII
arm
cv co
- - Flm'
�F--J
im
l 1 SW t6T 4 ' SWIM.
N-
�7 €
rn�a
A
cd
ca\`
sw zsp si -
c
s
c0
w
' I a• li:l
N
!L
EXHIBIT 1
1113 — 30 T23N R5E W 112
G3
0 20D 4W � 19 T23N R5E W 112
�Iri t cj_r� 1:4,800
= "__ SM9
r=
r•
S0. Ems.. \dl�ulei+�e10t1,�dry E4 Ek M - ILC1,rc
1 1 ! i _ .. -fir--��•..�., a
p ! 4'1 • 4 r tF-� r1l�h:
miles . kK
f
�ooaE)8099®®ooa0e 0001ease 65 (D
a"kBit i °'ax}a ��� ���k
19
�aa aha A l4 " ak
s $
it it
gig I
26
�$
NORqq gggg ° m =F: ss c k p s M M
co
'apiL
�
4
§ � €� � i n �i � �" g FFkk. � � � Spy B � � t� �" � �Y �"p
ispc�e g gill
CD
a4E44 e a
e m
OWN
7,11
Sp 7R
?•�
��
�!
H«r
rx,!
��
k �_
r
!�� rlrr� x
=!u.'"'
=xr+lxix..
�.
W ,c
Ij?I ill: •
nr� '�w,i'y� sA'
lrsl��,
�
NC
miles . kK
f
�ooaE)8099®®ooa0e 0001ease 65 (D
a"kBit i °'ax}a ��� ���k
19
�aa aha A l4 " ak
s $
it it
gig I
26
�$
NORqq gggg ° m =F: ss c k p s M M
co
'apiL
�
4
§ � €� � i n �i � �" g FFkk. � � � Spy B � � t� �" � �Y �"p
ispc�e g gill
CD
a4E44 e a
e m
r'b
ROW,
49�
I r
C"R
OF 1I
p1
jjAr.;:pVF .... j:g$rX-j N -9 a ;t 09 aji!EjE9
4 11 AqnmU I
FM
A.1-ifix g -111111i P 1414"'.1111141H
pall 1xilg lip,% 110.
Ix lix-IT!;
1
POP, ply; 1A
FPR XX
liar xm
-8 ivjfiO4 jjF
a 11Ng F
i J'g'i gagg
x Ix a
R I
C:
L^J
O O
� a
N
c w
C LL-
�I�I
Lu
G
N
P
W
a
i
0
w
cr
10
tn
vt
O
O
1
CD
A
LL7
L
d
l
L
m
;_;i
F-
1-4
X
x
W
1
L':
29
i�
0
4
N
OO
b
L
N
LL
ri+
LN
m
Y,
� a
s O
N
d
m
-
W
fl fl
J
1
L':
29
i�
0
4
N
OO
b
L
N
LL
ri+
LN
m
Y,
AdIRL
Denis Law �+
Mayor l X O
Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 7
Usuno)jun Qsaigie . ' -
Larry D. Craighead
211 N. Record St, Ste 222
Dallas, TK 75202
Subjeclt: Wairnart ExpansZon Modification Request
743 Rainier Ave S
t=ile -No. L.UA10-009, SA -H, ECF
Dear Mr: Maison:
This letter is sent in response to your March 4, 2010 request for modifications from the .City's Refuse
and Recyclables regulations (RMC 4-4-090). The request was included as part of the land use application
for the expansion of the Renton Walmart location.
5utnma-ry of Request
The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of
retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center, The applicant is proposing
16,000 square feet'of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4;000 square feet in the Garden
Center. - Che ,expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern- facade, with
modifications along the eastern facade, The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface
parking lot with an expansion- of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking
stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part.of the parking lot expansion the; applicant is
proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to. the demolition of the existing
restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6.acres and is located
within the Commercial Arterial (GA)'and Medium Industrial (IM), zoning designations and is also located
withirt Urban Design District D. Access would Continue to be provided Via existing driveways along .SW.
7th Street, Rainier Ave S, H- rdie Ave S and S Grady Way. There -appear to -be no critical areas on-site.
The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area for -recyclable deposits and a 30 .cubic yard area for
refuse deposits. An administrative modification has been requested in order to reduce the refuse
deposit area from 1,502 square feet to 30 cubic yards.
Section 4-4-090.F allows.the Administrator to grant modifications from' the refuse an recyclable
standards for individual cases, -provided the modification meets the foilowing'criteria (pursuant to RMC
4 -9 -250.D.2)' -
a., Will'meet the objectives and' safety, function, appearance, environmental protectlon
and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering
judgment; and
b. Will riot be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; and
Renton CityHalf 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. r rentonwa.gov
C. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and
d. can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
Background
The applicant,, Larry D. Craighead Architects, Fins requested a modification from the City's Refuse and
Recyclable Standards (RMC -44=090.E) M order to reduce the size. of the required refuse deposit area.
Retail developments, require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1;000 square feet of building gross
floor area'for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10,square feet per 1,0D0 square feet of
building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot.area
for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits.' The code applies in this 'instance
due to the proposed expansions -of the.faciiity which would require a 751 square foot deposit area for
recyciables (751SIF= 5 x 155,244/1,000 5F) and a 1,502 square foot deposit area for refuse (1,502- 10.x
1155,244%1,000 SF)). The proposed recyclable deposit area complies with Renton Municipal Code.
However,. the proposed refuse deposit area is less' than -the minimum required. Therefore, a
modification request has been made on behalf of Walmart.
Analysis
a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and -
maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon.sound engineering judgment.
If approved, the size of the refuse deposit area would be a reduction from the 1,502 square feet
required to a 30 cubic yard, area. The applicant contends that a reduction in.the required siie of
the refuse deposit area is appropriate due to the use of a compactor which has been engineered
for high' volute usage. The applicant contends the self contained, compactor would reduce
refuse pickup while eliminating fluid seepage and: minimizing odors thus meeting the objectives
of the refuse and recyclable standards.
Staff concurs the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the refuse and
recyclable standards by providing adequate refuse'deposit.areas in the amount necessary for
the Walmart.
b) Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in -the vicinity.
The applicant -contends the- proposed refuse'deposit area,and.use of .the .self contained
compactor would be adequate for the expanded facility. Staff concurs, the proposed refuse and
recyclable deposit areas would provide adequate space to handle the needs for the existing and
proposed facility. It is not anticipated thafthe approval -of a modification to permit a 30.cubic,
yard compact refuse deposit area, as opposed to 1;502 sctuare foot conventional space, would
be injurious to other properties In the vicinity. '
C) -Conform -to the intent and purpose of the Code.
See discussion under criterioin "a)" above.
d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended.
The refuse and recyciable.standards (RMC 4-4^090.E) require a minimum of 10 square feet per
1,000 square feet of building gross. floor area be 'provided for refuse deposit areas. The
applicant contends and staff concurs; that based upon the'use of a compactor, which has been
engineered for high volume usage, it is anticipated the. reduction of the required deposit areas is
considered to be reasonable.
e) Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
As stated under criterion "a)" & "b)", the proposed reduction of the refuse deposit area should
not create adverse impagts to other properties in the vicinity of the retail store.
Decision
The,refuse and recyclable deposit area, modification for the Wa[mart Expansion is hereby approved.
Appeal Process: Appeals of this administrative decision must be filed in writing on of before 5:00 p.m.
April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, with:
Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057; Appeals to the Examiner
are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6. Additional information regarding.the
appeal process, maybe obtairied from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6520.
If you have questions regarding this decision feel free to contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner,-at
(425) 430-7219. .
Sincerely,
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director Date
Pianning.Division
CC. Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager
Parties of Record
Yellow File
Denis Law 0
Mayor J' Of
f'ti� r�
, Jr
Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
March 25, 2010
Usunobun Osaigie
Larry D. Craighead
211 N. Record St, Ste 222
Dallas, TX 75202
Subject: Walmart Expansion Modification Request
743 Rainier Ave S
File No. LUA1.0-009, SA -H, ECF
Dear Mr. Osaigie;
This letter. is sent in response to your March 4, 2014 request for modifications from the City's Refuse
and Recyclables regulations (RMC 4-4-090). The request was included as part of the land use application
for the expansion of the Renton Walmart location.
Summary of Request
The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of
retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing
16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden
Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern Facade with
modifications along. the eastern facade. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface
parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking
stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is
proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing
restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located
within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located
within Urban Design District D. Access would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW
7th Street, Rainier Ave 5, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for
refuse deposits. An administrative modification has been requested in order to reduce the refuse
deposit area from 1,502 square feet to 30 cubic yards.
Section 4-4-090Y allows the Administrator to grant modifications from the refuse and recyclable
standards for individual cases, provided the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC
4-9-250. D.2 ):
Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection
and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering
judgment; and
Will not be injurious to other property(les) in the vicinity; and
Renton CityHal[ • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
C. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and
Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
Background
The applicant, Larry D. Craighead Architects, has requested a modification from the City's Refuse and
Recyclable Standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) in order to reduce the size of the required refuse deposit area.
Retail developments, require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross
floor area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of
building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area
for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. The code applies in this instance
due to the proposed expansions of the facflity which would require a 751 square foot deposit area for
recyclables (751 SF = 5 x 155,244/1,000 SF) and a 1,502 square foot deposit area for refuse (1,502 = 10 x
(155,244/1,000 SF]). The proposed recyclable deposit area complies with Renton Municipal Code.
However, the proposed refuse deposit area is less than the minimum required. Therefore, a
modification request has been made on behalf of Walmart.
Analysis
a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and
maintainability intended by the code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment.
If approved, the size of the refuse deposit area would be a reduction from the 1,502 square feet
required to a 30 cubic yard area. The applicant contends that a reduction in the required size of
the refuse deposit area is appropriate due to the u_se of a compacter which has been engineered
for high volume usage. The applicant contends the self contained compactor would reduce
refuse pickup while eliminating fluid seepage and minimizing odors thus meeting the objectives
of the refuse and recyclable standards.
Staff concurs the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the refuse and
recyclable standards by providing adequate refuse deposit areas in the amount necessary for
the Walmart.
b) Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
The applicant contends the proposed refuse deposit area and use of the self contained
compactor would be adequate for the expanded facility. Staff concurs, the proposed refuse and
recyclable deposit areas would provide adequate space to handle the needs for the existing and
proposed facility. It is not anticipated that the approval of a modification to permit a 30 cubic
yard compact refuse deposit area, as opposed to 1,502 square foot conventional space, would
be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
c) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code.
See discussion under criterion "a)" above.
d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended.
The refuse and recyclable standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) require a minimum of 10 square feet per
1,000 square feet of building gross floor area be provided for refuse deposit areas. The
applicant contends and staff concurs; that based upon the use of a compactor, which has been
engineered for high volume usage, it is anticipated the reduction of the required deposit areas is
considered to be reasonable.
PWI
L
eJ Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
As stated under criterion "a)" & "b)", the proposed reduction of the refuse deposit area should
not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity of the retail store.
Decision
The refuse and recyclable deposit area modification for the Walmart Expansion is hereby approved.
Appeal Process: Appeals of this administrative decision must be flied in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.
April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, with:
Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner
are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
If you have questions regarding this decision feel free to contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner,. at
(425) 430-7219.
Sincerely,
r
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director
Planning. Division
cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager
Parties of Record
Yellow File
]Ld-2- -S' l r 0
Date
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
OWNER: Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, 4509
Bellevue, WA 98004
CONTACT/APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Walmart Expansion Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA.10-009, EGF, SA -H
743 Rainier Ave S
May 13, 2010
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the
existing Walmart retail facility, which would include 16,000
square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of
4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate
16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales.
SUN24ARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on April 20, 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
YM4UTES
The following minutes are a summary of the AprU 27, 2010 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map
application, reports, staff comments and other
documentation pertinent to this request,
0 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
Tile No.: L.UA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 2
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton., Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7"' Street and S Grady Way. The
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would beset aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site.
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance --- Mitigated with 6
measures. No appeals were filed.
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie ,Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase, the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building
pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done.
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fagade to break up -the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 1.0 -foot landscape strip along all street
Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan
Exhibit No. 4: Landsca a Plan
Exhibit No. 5: Tree Invento Plan
Exhibit No. 6: East and West Elevations
Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations
Exhibit No. 8: Large Pae Short Plat Plan (9 ages)
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton., Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7"' Street and S Grady Way. The
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would beset aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site.
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance --- Mitigated with 6
measures. No appeals were filed.
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie ,Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase, the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building
pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done.
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fagade to break up -the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 1.0 -foot landscape strip along all street
9 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.. LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 3
frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter
of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of
landscaping along SW 7`h Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is
being done in the parking area. Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745
parking stalls are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed
30,600 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements.
Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC.
The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to
30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is
engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show
compliance with refuse and recycle standards.
Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support for this expansion.
Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project.
Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the
retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to
Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that .pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it
with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion
of the structure to SW 7`s Street.
The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the
existing Iights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting plan needs to be provided showing both existing
and new lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code.
A drainage report has been submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic
feet per second, therefore, the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment
has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area_
The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and
if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban
Design District D.
The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of
refuse and recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum
standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation
is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of
Iandscaping. The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment. Most
of the minimum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an
irrigation plan must be provided.
There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent
for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale
element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done.
Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the fagade. A building materials and colors
board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality materials have been provided.
0 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May l3, 2010
Page 4
Jack McCullou , McCullough & Hill, 701 5t' Avenue, Ste. 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant
looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal
presented today seems appropriate for the site.
There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than
building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project
must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this proj cot and then looking at parking from a demand point of
view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to
support this facility.
Jeff Chambers, PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss
some of the items previously brought forward.
In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as any
of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway
would be widened out a -ad some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from
approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site,
which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By
doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed
new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7`s, which was part of the
request from staff.
The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in
those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage.
The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages
parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around 10 -foot candles. The current parking lot
meets that uniformity. When 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of
the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a
bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would
increase, there would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this
site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located.
Usunobun Qggt te, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Dallas, TX 75202 stated that
they would be able to make the suggested changes to the fagade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant
look.
The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The
design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation.. The will continue to work
with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize
a workable solution that will make everyone happy, They want the City to be happy with this expansion.
Jack McCullough stated that they were going to'take an existing facility that is non -conforming in some respects
and make it better. Code does not require full conformance, They are consistently working with staff to make
the project better,
Kavren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Short
Plat, All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction. It is still subject
to final review and permitting.
! 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -14
May 13, 2010
Page 5
Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they
were subject to the foot candles being at a level that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly
was a matter of a nice every distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is
not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the
west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project_ There: was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:56 am.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RJECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FMINGs:
The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SETA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1,
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -NI).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
There was no opposition from the public. regarding the subject proposal.
The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart
store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does
not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank
and Jimmy Mac's,
7. The map element of the Comprehensive plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not
mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM -(Medium Industrial). The vast
majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site
limited to 1M uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines.
9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959.
10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas
from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded.
11. The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or I3.6 acres.
12. The subject site is essentially level.
0 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 6
13. The subject site contains 99 significant trees, Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant
proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would
be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is
proposed (see below).
14. Access to the subject site will be unchanged.
15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing
complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its
garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden
space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas
along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front
facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade near its northeast corner and two
smaller additions near the northwest corner of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127
additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls.
16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The
applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification. There
will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the
general merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet
rooflines that curve in wing -like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving
central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas
would contain seating and trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches.
17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center
will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. Tla a roofline along the north will be 21 feet
4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme.
18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and
recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit. These units have
been demonstrated to handle wastelrecycling materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an
area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect
of the proposal
19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the ehanges in the height of elements along
eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest
around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the
appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the
applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior
treatments.
20. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the
street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares_ The proposed expansion would not
comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff
found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not
trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards. The setbacks on the north, west and south are
respectively 150 feet, 65 feet and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the
proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32
feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet_
Drofiak Apartments Site flan Approval
file No.: f,UA-09-1I2, SA -11
May 13, 2010
Page 7
21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of
the site in the area where Billy McMe's was located_ Code permits a range of parking and the
proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the
top range of 745 stalls, The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger
complement of parking.
22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 745 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes
65,690 square feet or approximately 40,040 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The
new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The
older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions
to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the
existing configuration would eliminate many of the larger, mature trees located in the parking areas.
Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees, These
landscape areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of
the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans.
23, The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation
fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips.
24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership.
Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue to be compatible with these various uses,
25. Stormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff.
The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that
lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales.
26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the
vast majority of the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies,
Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designations, Commercial
Corridor, should be applied.
27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tail.
Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has
proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better
overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment. There is nothing
critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards_ Those standards apply to all
development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. While the
expanded parking area will. be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles
should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights
throughout the complex.
28. The following Table contains staffs analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D
Guidelines.
aj Review of Compliance to District `D' Design Guidelines;
The site is located within Design District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design
Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal
0
Droiiak Apartments Site Platt Approval
File No.: LUA-49-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 8
meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval
are met.
A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the vision of the
City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from
public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts
that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and
intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle
circulation; and rovide service to businesses.
N/A Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets In addition to
public arterials.
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
N/A promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway
system, The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest);
(a) Nigh Visibility Street_ A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design
treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrlan-Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of
pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street
parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) Internal or local roads (public or private).
2. Building Location and orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish act[ve, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways;
organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures
so that natural light and so[ar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual
character and definition of streets withln the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings,
parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the
street.
V, Minimum Standard: orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive alsle, but
instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard,
3. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries
further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing
d a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public
sidewalk, and include human -scale elements.
Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network
N/A of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view
to building entries.
N/A Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open
space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection
at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access.
Minimum Standard. Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges,
adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development:
i 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No. :I,UA-09-112, SA -11
May 13, 2014
Page 9
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing
neighborhoods are preserved.
Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a
compatible transition where new bulldfngs differ from surrounding development in terms of
building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be
considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses:
a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing official in
order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent
yards;
b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels;
c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element Into smaller increments; or
d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development.
5. Service Element Location and Design:
Intent; To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by
locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in
high visibility areas.
Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts
on the .pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall concentrated
✓
„be
and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see
Illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e).
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed,
consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening
Not Compliant
and Storage Height/Location Limitations.
Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site
plan application. Staff has recommended as a eonditlon of approval the applicant submit
elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure.
Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure re uirements garbage, re clip
collection and utfll areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened
Not Compliant
around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors.
Staff Comment. See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing Is prohibited.
Staff Comment., See comments above.
Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -
oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides
of such facility.
6. Gateways: Not Applicable
B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various
modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts
from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of
parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without
parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual Impact of parking lots; and use
access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
1. Location of Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of
buildings.
Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a bullding and the front
Not Compliant
property line or the building and side property llne on the street side of a corner lot.
Staff Comment. The bulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and
t�
Droflak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 10
Rainier Ave S/SR 157. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls
of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing
parking lot. rhe parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment
and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing a
substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual
impact in addition to Increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site,
Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave S/SR 157 is proposed at a width of
approximately 55 feet and SW 7`h St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20
feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to
minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street_
2. Design of Surface Parking:
Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking
lots wherever possible.
Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties.
Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials,
therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent
Not Compliant properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site
lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning project Manager prior to
construction or building permit aeproval.
100, Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact
see RMC 4-4-080E7 Landscape Re ulr meats .
3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable
C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating
pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the
pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on
sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public
transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic.
1. Pathways through Parking Lots:
Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots.
Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be
d
provided throughout Rarking areas_
Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided
perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart.
2. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the
pedestrian environment.
Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system
that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk
system and adjacent properties..
V/
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above
the level of vehicular travel.
✓
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be
differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials.
f
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of
sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
N/A
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more
feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width.
THP walkwav shall Include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street
• 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Ilan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 11
3, Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians, and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all
times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet
wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15
feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal -
and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably
maintained over an extended period of time.
+� Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access
to public spaces or building entrances.
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and
vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable
for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas In sufficient
amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping Is Intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic
relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channeiize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community.
ve
trees (see illustration, subsection RMC -4-3-100.G461).
✓
(b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to
major building entries shall be allowed.
+r
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient'width to
accommodate the anticipated number of users.
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping
shalt not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries.
Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface
unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development.
3, Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians, and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all
times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet
wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15
feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal -
and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably
maintained over an extended period of time.
+� Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access
to public spaces or building entrances.
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and
vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable
for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas In sufficient
amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping Is Intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic
relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channeiize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community.
ve
Minimum Standard, All pervious areas shall be landscaped dsee RRMC4-4-070. Landscaping).,
VI
Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge
and building, as determined by the City of Renton.
N/A
Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed
with tree grates, For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City
of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100,H3a).
Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and
program of the building, the site, and use.
Minimum Standard. The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping,
through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or
concept of the development.
d
Minimum Standard:5urface narking areas. shall be screened. by landscaping in to
.order
reduce views of parked cars from streets ]see RMC 4-4-08OF7. Landscape Requirements).
Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet In width as measured fr9m the sidewalk (see
Illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b}.
+�
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street
frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 12
Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four
feet from the top of the root ball) respectively_
Minimum Standard; Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped
area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at (slanting and have a mature height between
three and four feet.
VK Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least
90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to
occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure
required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a
landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less thou three years in sufficient
amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
Mlnirnum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows:
(1) Required Amount:
I Total Number of Spaces .1 Minimum Required. Landscape Area"
1 15 to 50 1 15 square feet/parking space
1 51 to 99 1 25 square feet/parking space
104 or more 1 35 square feet/parking space
We (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape
areas.
Not Compliant (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that
reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall he
eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball)
respectively.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to
maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the
existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the
landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the cede, could not
be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not
necessary. All new parking areas would corpply with the minimum standard for trees acing.
+� (4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous.
V, (5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of
planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete.
(5) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
.r Minimum Standard: Regular malntenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are
kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Not Compliant M1n[murn Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape
areas.
Staff Comment. An irrigation plan was notsubmttted as part of the application. Therefore staff
recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not
E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN;
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and
uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.. LP:A-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 13.
retail architecture.
1. Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all
sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals
of no more than forty feet (40').
5taff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the
southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with
the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing
elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with
architectural elements, however these facades would also not comply with the minimum
modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two SO font vestibules along the
approximate 500 foot eastern fogade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which
exceeds the 40 -foot Intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies,
ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to
dlstinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large
fagade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many
architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest
along the eastern fagade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7`h St
facing fagade has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fagade includes the use
of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center_
While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest, which break up the wall plane,
there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements
which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a
condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade,
that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval,
2. Ground -level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the
pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual
interest. _
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) Is
considered a blank wail if:
(a) It Is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet In height, has a
horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building
modulation or other architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of a ground floor wail having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater
and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Where blank wails are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be
treated with one or more of the following:
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground
cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall;
(b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing
that meets the intent of this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
(e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Sta Comment: See comments above.
0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan. Approval
File No.; LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 14
Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall.
Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other
rMinimurn
landscape feature along the facade's ground floor.
Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75
percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation
facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or
doors.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the
eastern fagade. However, the applicant has provided extending parapets, clerestories,
canopies, ornamental fighting, pedestrian fumiture and a large planter box with an iconic tree
In order to break up the monotony of the large fa§ade and provide human scale elements.
Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure In addition to the many architectural
features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved
visual interest along the eastern facade for the distant public. However, additional elements
could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of
the pedestrian environment. staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant
provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval. The
revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plana are,
beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is
encouraged to include one or more of the following In order to achieve a human scale
character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs,
evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade.
Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following:
✓
(a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building.
However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum
amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent.
✓
(b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than
permanent displays.
✓
(c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing.
✓
(d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror type) glass and film are prohibited.
3. Building Roof Lines:
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and
contribute to the visual continuity of the district,
✓
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied
and Interesting roof profiles:
(a) Extended parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the
e uipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
Minimum Standard: Screenin features shall blend with the architectural character of the
[41*dlng
buildin consistent with RMC 4-4-095E Itoaf-To E ui ment.
mpliant
Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed
portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher
elevations.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color
of the roofmounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof.
Materials:
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 15
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance overtime; encourage the use of materials
that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the
neighborhood,
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open
N/A
space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color
N/A
scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Staff Comment: It appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the some color
scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff
recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the
Current planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or In combination, shall have an attractive texture,
N/A
pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Staff Comment: See Condition above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal
banding, patterns, or textural changes.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
F. SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertlsing businesses; provide directional assistance. encourage
signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to
the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village, and create color and Interest.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an Integral part of the design approach to the building.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include:
i. Pole signs;
ii. Roof signs;
ill. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet
signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are
signs with only the individual letters back -lit.
N/A
Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with
the overall building design.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of
primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above flnished grade, including support
structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to
provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may
incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as ap ved by the Director.
ro
Nf A
Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
G. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas,
pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual
attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: ighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in
RMC 4-4-075 Lighting Exterior ©n -Si e.
Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a conditlon of Approval, the applicant be required
to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive
glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and
downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement,
unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is
specifically listed as exempt om provisions located in AMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
Pile No.: LUA-09-112, SA -1-1
May 13, 2010
Page 16
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be
allowed to directly project off-site.
Staff Comment. See comments above _
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and
aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades,
and at pedestrian -oriented spaces.
Staff Comment: see comments obove
CONCLUSIONS:
The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria
are generally represented in part by the following enumeration:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
e. Conservation of property values;
f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation,
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new
jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract
patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The new design features will also create a
more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City.
The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the
setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or
complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed
approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard
setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion
and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The
building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning
Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the
parking area for what is a modest remodel. Tn addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would
remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determined
when actual permits for construction are submitted.
4, The two-story facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and the
• 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Placa Approval
File No.: LUA-04-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 17
large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the
site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code,
actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The
neighboring uses to the south, north and cast work to ease the transition to the much larger background
Wahmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the
store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the
existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the parking islands will be enlarged and the
newer parking will meet code, The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the
existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the
applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter
landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot.
The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in
the northern parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking
is a dominant feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas, The applicant
does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape
requirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and
to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on
the site and to and from the site.
6. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values.
Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the
asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of cars circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting
down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated,
pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced.
8. While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be
available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use.
9. The store is served by existing urban infrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional
stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale.
10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are
applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in
this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in
most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has
justified why their project may not precisely meet same of the standards.
11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and
it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards. The enclosure will
have to meet the standards for containment and screening.
12. As noted above, the 16,000 square feet of remodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the
street to 15 feet. Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its
surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should
be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in
the large space between the street and actual store.
13. The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
Pile No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 18
that do not meet code specifications_ There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing
standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely
not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is
an overriding reason not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot
does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then
that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer
standards.
14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate
tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking Iot landscaping than required and will be
supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will
have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping.
15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building.
Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or
other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with
the guidelines.
lb. In conclusion, while it might be nicc to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the
proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The
additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as
noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cats and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe
the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
DECISION:
The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-
significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010.
2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on
Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the
approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all
development standards of the CA zone can be met.
3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit
approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing
doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited.
4, The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian
scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless
alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt
from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the
newer standards including 25 -foot height limitations.
5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in
sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit.
Drofak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -14
May 13, 2010
Page 19
6. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to construction or building permit approval.
7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade, which depict alternative methods to
mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval
subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include
additional hurnau scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or
additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be
used to comply with the guidelines.
9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed
portions of the roof.
10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
11. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees might exist.
ORDERED THIS 13'h day of May 2010.
--Ta LI'X�
FRED 7. KAUF
H1;AR.1NG E R
TRANSMITTED THIS 13`h day of May 2010 to the parties of record:
Rocale Timmons
Community & Economic Dev
City of Renton
Jack McCullough
McCullough & Hill
701 5t° Avenue, Ste.
Seattle, WA 98104
Kayren Kittrickc
Community & Economic Dev
City of Renton
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
7220 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Maim Street, Ste. 509
Bellevue, WA 98004
Jeremy Smith, Manager
Walmart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Usunobun Osagie,
Larry D. Craighead Architects
211 N Record Street, Ste. 222
Dallas, TX 75202
Sharon Ajiba.de, Asst. Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Huy Tran, Asst. Manager Sophorn Chan, Assistant Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader
Walmart 42516 Walmart 42516 Walmart ##2516
743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98957 Renton, WA 98057
Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent_ Supv.
Walrnart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of May 2010 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pictsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Grof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must he filed in
writine on or before 5:00 .m. M&I 27 2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision.. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
•
•
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
Pile No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 20
Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods
Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics
Brandi Hansen, Mgr, Automotive
Walmart 42516
Walmart 92516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Sierra Schavrien, ICS Asssociate
Mark Goodman
Tauasi Paaga, HR
Walmart 92516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Nancy Chase, Dept Manager
William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld.
Francis Canapi
Walmart 42516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Cheryl Harrelson
Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper
Levan, Dept. Mgr.
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Josie Mervcus, Dept. Mgr.
Abram Sparrow, Dept_ Mgr
Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Sup. 2"' Shift
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent_ Supv.
Walrnart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of May 2010 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pictsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Grof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must he filed in
writine on or before 5:00 .m. M&I 27 2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision.. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
Drofiak Apartments Sitc Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 21
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title 1V, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Cleric, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5;00 p.m., AUv 27, 2010.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by 911 Council or fiival Processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal, Decision -makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made iu public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
Site Area:
594,553 SF (13.5 ac) Total BufldingArea GSF.
150,244 5F
1t
0
co
E3 - 18 T23N RSE W 1/2
IIM CA
1M
FAm �'H
IM
im
Nis
KP
1LF-1
ZONING MM 8a❑K Hao T23N EXHIBIT 2
M TEt'1.111i M SS MCES G 3
PfflffM ON 11/n/W
�yyb�eF�4Wtlm
re.tpr,wr..,,.vw.aw•. srawR 0 200 400
Feet 19 T23N R5E W 1/2
1:4.800
�i19
1fr!
CO
_y
1
r1
W
W
et
,
1M
CO
m
jl
1t
0
co
E3 - 18 T23N RSE W 1/2
IIM CA
1M
FAm �'H
IM
im
Nis
KP
1LF-1
ZONING MM 8a❑K Hao T23N EXHIBIT 2
M TEt'1.111i M SS MCES G 3
PfflffM ON 11/n/W
�yyb�eF�4Wtlm
re.tpr,wr..,,.vw.aw•. srawR 0 200 400
Feet 19 T23N R5E W 1/2
1:4.800
�i19
ti•-
1 �.-y '_ ..a.. iYyi. l�!.r ♦.SSn'.� �+-.�-4.'• .. : _ �.'a.�Y_.•` i��•`='l�u�L__.--.�..�
�'.b � !,!. `'':_' c:. � � - •-E . C. 7 iii ' •-�Nr� '
�' � I ] F •s��x {'".� ` Lr�J { � - � 1 �•IA, lFw.'+.I'�1ui
i
Cc
P I f - � .: �„ -rimer �•+-� f/tt4', �-FtR /�
�
; i i iia C�rt 3 P k' i4 `
jg[ p
6 4
Q
� � s
A
o
i
XF IS Ito
�' 21 6
S
i
1
ad
d1o,
d
ti•-
1 �.-y '_ ..a.. iYyi. l�!.r ♦.SSn'.� �+-.�-4.'• .. : _ �.'a.�Y_.•` i��•`='l�u�L__.--.�..�
�'.b � !,!. `'':_' c:. � � - •-E . C. 7 iii ' •-�Nr� '
�' � I ] F •s��x {'".� ` Lr�J { � - � 1 �•IA, lFw.'+.I'�1ui
i
Cc
P I f - � .: �„ -rimer �•+-� f/tt4', �-FtR /�
�
; i i iia C�rt 3 P k' i4 `
r�. M
!
..Ka . ae t¢ wa ��'t� Vt r w y.dy+fi�aVl�nwla
jg[ p
6 4
Q
� � s
A
o
i
XF IS Ito
�' 21 6
S
d
w
r�. M
!
..Ka . ae t¢ wa ��'t� Vt r w y.dy+fi�aVl�nwla
jg[ p
6 4
A
o
i
a d
r�. M
!
..Ka . ae t¢ wa ��'t� Vt r w y.dy+fi�aVl�nwla
G
Ln
W,z
0
0
m
a
G'7
c.
RL
Q
7
fR
c➢
0
op
They, in the language of the code, shall be. requrred to comply w€tfi the provisions of fhis Oct on.":'
CCULLOUGH HILL, Ps
June 4, 2010
Fred J. Kaufman
Citv of Renton Hearing Examiner
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE; Response to Request for Reconsideration
File NO, LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval
Dear Mr. Examiner-
.� _ t
We write on behalf of the applicant Jeff Chambers/PACLAND to respond to the Request
for Reconsideration (the "Request") of your decision approving the above -referenced project (the
"Project"), which was filed by "Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth," ("RNHG") on May 27,
2010. The request is without merit and should be denied.
We note at the outset that RNHG failed to appear at the public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner in this case. As such, there is no evidence in this closed record supporting any standing
on the part of RNHG, and die Request fails to set forth any grounds under which RNHG is an
"interested person" in this case, as required under RMC 4-8-100. RNHG's absence in the
administrative review process for the Project constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative
remedies mi this case. The Applicant reserves all rights and defenses in this proceeding relating to
RNI-IG's lack of participation in this case, failure to make a record, failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and lack of standing.
RMC 4-8-100(G)(4) outlines the criteria for the reconsideration of the Examiner's
decision. Reconsideration may be granted when the Exarnizzer's decision is based on an erroneous
procedure, errors of lain or fact, an etros: in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which
could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing. The request for reconsideration shall set
forth the specific errors relied upon by the appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as the Examiner deems proper. Here, RNHG has failed to show that
the Examiner's decision meets any of the reconsideration criteria. Its request must be rejected.
Issue One
RNHG states that the Hearing Examiner should reconsider the site plaza review decision
because the Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA") studying traffic impacts of the project allegedly
underestimated trip generation counts. This allegation is untimely, without support in the record,
and should be rejected.
701 Fifth Avenue - Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseattle.com
Ab
i •
City= of Renton Hearing Examinee
June 4, 2010
Page 2 of 6
First, the traffic mitigation fee referenced by RNHG was imposed by the SEPA Mitigated
Deterinination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") that was issued in connection with this Project. See
Attachment 1. The MDNS was issued on March 25, 2010. The TIA submitted by the applicant
identified that the project would generate 608 additional daily trips. To mitigate for these
additional trips, the MDNS imposed a SEPA condition requiring the payment of $45,600 in traffic
impact fees (608 tips x $75.00). See Attachment 1, Condition S.
The deadline for MDNS appeals expired on April 16, 2014. RNHG did not subunit
comments into the record regarding the MDNS, and failed to appeal the MDNS. RNHG cannot
now attempt to appeal the imposition of the traffic mitigation condition, as the appeal is untimely.
The request for reconsidetation should be rejected for this reason alone.
Second, RNHG's allegations are without support in the record. RNHG did not appear at
the site plan hearing before the Hearing Examiner and has not submitted into the record any
evidence supporting its allcpdons of a discrepancy regarding trip generation. It is barred from -AW
submitting any evidence now because the record has been closed. In the absence of any evidence
in the record to support its allegations, RNHG's request for reconsideration must be rejected.
RMC 4-8-100(G)(4).
Issue Two
RNHG has alleged that the project does not comply with the City of Renton's Design
District `D' regulations. RNHG has misrepresented the Renton Municipal Code with regards to
the design guidelines, and this allegation is therefore without factual or legal support. It should be
rejected.
First, as with all of RNHG's allegations, RNHG failed to submit evidence showing that
the Project does not comply with the staf?s interpretation of the design guidelines. In the absence
of any evidence in the record to support its allegations, the Examiner's initial decision, and the
staff's recommendation, are entitled to deference. See RMC 4-8-100(G)(2)(b). RN14G's request
for reconsideration must be rejected.
In addition, RNHG's allegation regarding the City's design guidelines misses the point.
The guidelines specifically state that they are intended to allow flexibility in project design. RMC
4-3-100(A)(2). ("These standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be
met. In order to provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element.") The guidelines
also grant the decisionmaker wide discretion in determining compliance with the guidelines, and
do not requite strict compliance with the guidelines:
When the Adn-�inisttator...or designee has determined that the proposed
manner o fineeting the design requirement through the guidelines and
intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be requited to detnonstuAte
sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been
approved.
i
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
June 4, 2010
Page 3 of G
RMC 4-8-100(G)(2)(b). `the guidelines grant further flexibility, to be exercised by the reviewing
official:
The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the design
regulations. In rendering a decision, the Official will consider proposals on
the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the
minimum standatds and guidelines, and encourage creative design
alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations.
RMC 4-3-100(D)(2), The Exami.net correctly applied RMC 4-3-100p)(2) by allowing sorne
flexibility, and by requiring the imposition of several design review conditions, in order to create a
better -designed project. See Conclusions 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12; Conditions S, 9, 10, 11. For example,
rather than requiring a con1iei:cial store to provide windows along the ground floor, the
Examiner imposed a condition rnaintaaining the intent of the design guideline (to provide human
interest at ground level). See Condition 8. RNHG's allegations are without merit and must be
rejected.
Issue Three
RNHG has alleged that the project is an illegal expansion of a nonconforming use. This
allegation is without Iegal support. It must be rejected.
In addition to its traditional development regulations, the RMC includes, at Chapter 4-3, a
set of Urban Design Overlay regulations. They are designed to implement the Land Use and
Comtriuni y Design Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. As true overlay regulations, they
are applied independent of the other development regulations of the Code, which they supersede.
These overlay :regulations govern:
a. Site design and building location;
b. Parking and vehicular access;
c. Pedestrian environment;
d. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space;
e. Building Architectural Design;
f. Signage;
g. Lighting.
The application of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations is not intended under the Code
to be prescriptive, but rather to foster flexible solutions that lead to improved design. Specifically:
2. This Section lists elements that are required to be included in all development in the
;zones stated in subsection B1 of this Section. Each element includes an intent statement,
standards, and guidelines, In order to provide predictability, standards are provided, These
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
June 4, 2010
Page 4 of G
standards specify a prescriptive n-ianner in which the requirement can be inet. In order to
;provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element. These guidelines and the
:intent statement provide direction for those who seek to tneet the xeguired element in a
manner that is different from the standards.
a. The determination as to the satisfaction of the requirement through the use of
the guidelines and the intent statement is to be rnade by the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee.
b. When the Administrator of the Department of Community and Rconornic
Development or designee has determined that the proposed manner of meeting the design
requitement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be
required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has
been approved.
Thus, the Administrator (and the Hearing Examiner in review) must review the proposed project
design against the standardsiguidelines and intent statement of each design element, in order to .:-At
determine compliance with the Urban Design Overlay Regulations.
Under RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b)(ii), the Urban Design Overlay Regulations apply specifically
to Big Box Retail uses. "Big Box Retail" uses are defined in the Code as follows:
An indoor retail or wholesale use in a building no less than seventy five
thousand (75,000) square Feet of gross floor area and typically requires a high
parking -to -building area ration. Big -box retail buildings are typically single -
story structures, with a mass that stands more than thirty feet (30;) tall. Big -
box retail/wholesale sales can include, but are not limited to, membership
warehouse clubs that einphasiue bulk sales, discount stores, and outlet stores.
This definition excludes vehicle sales, outdoor retail sales, and adult retail
uses.
RMC 4-11-1$0. The Project is a Big Box Retail use. As such, under the Urban Design Overlay
Regulations, the Project is subject to compliance Nvith the design regulations applicable to District
`D'. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b)(ii). As noted above, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations govern,
among other things, site design and building location. That is to say, the requited site design and
building location for the Project is determined by the Urban Design Overlay Regulations.
Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner Decision, the Project has been determined to comply with
these regulations, including with respect to the location of the building in the Project.
Under the Site Plan Approval pursuant to the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, die
approved location of the building in the Project is not consistent with the setback requirements of
the CA zone (sae RMC 4-2.100), as noted in the Request. However, the Urban Design Overlay
Regulations are clear that "where there are conflicts between the design regulations of this Section
and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the regulations of this Section shall prevail."
RMC 4-3-100(B)(2). 'Thus, the approval of the location of the building in the Project, as
0
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
J unc 4, 2010
Page 5 of G
determined pursuant to the Urban Design. Overlay Regulations, controls over the inconsistent
provisions of the CA zone relating to setbacks.
Conclusion No. 3 of the Hearing Examiner decision acknowledges that the Project cannot
be expected (given the small size of the expansion) to bring the Project building to within 15 feet
of Rainier Avenue. Under Conclusion No. 4, the Hearing Examiner notes (in his discussion
relating to Urban Design compliance) that the significant building setback works to ease the
transition to neighboring uses_ This Conclusion is consistent with the intent of the Building
Location and Orientation provisions of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which suggest that
buildings should "ensure an appropriate transition between building, parking areas, and other land
uses" and that "careful siting and design treatment should be used to achieve a compatible
transition where buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk
and scale." RMC 4-3-100(E)(1). With respect to the applicable standards of the Urban Design
Overlay Regulations regarding building siting, both the Administrator and the Hearing Examiner
properly concluded that thQuProject will meet those standards.
Hence, while the Project is "nonconforming' as to the front yard setback requirements of
the CA zone, it is fully confornvng to the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which control in
this case.
This conclusion is reinforced by the provisions of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations
wlxich delegate to the Administrator (and the Examiner) the authority to approve expansions of
nonconforming structures through the design review process. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v) provides
that the Urban Design Overlay Regulations specifically apply to "alterations, enlargements, and/ot
restorations of nonconforming structures, pursuant to RMC 4-10-050," Thus, even if the Project
were viewed as "nonconforming" under Rl1,IC 4-10-050, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations
specifically authorize the Adtninistrator (and Hearing Examiner) to use the design review process
to supersede the other provisions of the Code.
The Examiner's application of the design guidelines to the Project was proper. RNHG's
allegation, must be rejected.
In summary, RNHG's allegations are untimely and without legal or factual uuerit in the
following inanner:
RNHG's claim regarding the traffic mitigation condition is untimely as the
traffic mitigation fees were imposed as SEPA conditions in the MDNS.
The appeal period has long since passed for the MDNS.
RNHG's claim regarding design guidelines is without legal or factual merit.
First, RNHG failed to submit any evidence in support of its claim. Second,
the design guidelines gives the Examiner the authority to encourage creative
design alternatives to meet the intent of the guidelines. RMC 4 -3-
100p)(2).
-3-
100(D)(2).
0
City of Renton I -Tearing Examiner
June 4, 2010
Page G of G
RNHG's claim regarding nonconforming structures is without legal merit.
The Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which prevail over other design
regulations of the Code, apply specifically to Big Box Retail uses like the
Project. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v). The Examiner properly applied the
design guidelines to this Rig Box Retail use to create a project of better
design. Even if the Project were deemed a "nonconfonning structure"
under RMC 4-10-O50, die Urban Design Overlay Regulations would still
apply to the Project, and would control over inconsistent development
regulations of the Code -
For these reasons, we respectfully ask that the Hearing Examiner reject the Request for
Reconsideration.
Sincerely,
YJo%-MIcCu1[ough
cc: Rocale Tirrunons, City of Renton
Claudia Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Denis Law -
Mayor City of
Ii I
V.
14
Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
March 25, 2010
Jeff Chambers, P.E.
Pacland
1505 Westlake Avenue N #305
Seattle, WA 98109
SUBJECT: ENVIRQNMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPAL DET ERMINATi©N a�
Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Chambers:
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a
threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures.
Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the
Mitigation Measures.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00
p.m. on April 16, 2010, Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required fee
with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-5-
110.13. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510,
A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers
on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1035 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, an April
27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Site Plan, The applicant or representative(s) of the
applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will
be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,
the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing.
Renton City Hall 4 1055 South Grady Way a Renton,Washington 98457 o rentonwa.gov
10
Jeff Chambers
March 25, 2010
Page 2 of 2
The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project
and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so, if you
have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219.
For the Environmental Rgview Committee,
Rocal Timm
Ass ciate Planner
Enclosure
cc: Peter BDnnell - 801uaelWhrnily LLC / Owner(s)
w
aEPAttrMrLntr OF coMMuntrry /F% CiLy of��
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE:
March 22, 2010
Project Name;
Walmart Expansion
Owner:
Peter Bonnell; Bonneil Family, LLC; 10047 Main Street #509; Bellevue, WA 98004
Applicant/Contact:
left Chambers; Pacland;1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste# 305; Seattle, WA 983.09
File Number:
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Project Manager:
Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner
ProjectSummory:
The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental
(SEPA) Revlew for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail
Facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional
9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000
square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in
the Gar_teiz Center.
The expansion of the facility is predominately located along
the northern facade with modifications to the eastern facade. The proposal
includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the
parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls
resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the
applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition
to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The
site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial
(CA) and Medium industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within
Urban Design District D. Access for the proposal would Continue to be provided
via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S/SR 167, Hardie Ave 5 and
S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
Project Locution:
743 Rainier Ave S Site Area: 594,553 SF (13.6 ac)
STAFF
Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a
RECOMMENDA7701V:
Determination of Nan Shmificance . mitimitpri fnnic_mi
rrcgcLc GuWLIUn MUM
ERC Report- Walrnart kxpanslon
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report
WALWART EKPANSIOPV LUA10-009, ECF, sA-N
Report of March 22, 2010 page 2 of 6
PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND
The applicant, PACLAND, is requesting Environmentai (SEPA) Review for the future construction of additions to the
Renton Walmart retail store. The expansion would increase the existing building by approximately 16,004 square
feet and decrease the existing garden center by approximately 4,000 square feet. The additions would be located
on the northern and eastern elevations and would create the opportunity to remodel the interior of the existing
store. The existing Walmart consists of an approximately 134,000 square foot building and a 9,000 square foot
Garden Center. The proposal also includes an expansion of the surface parking lot, along with additional
landscaping and improvements to drainage on-site as well as new fagade treatments along the northern elevation.
In addition to the Environmental Review, Site Plan Review before the Hearing Examiner has also been requested.
The subject property is located on the west side of Rainier Ave S/511 167 between SW 7'h St and S Grady Way. A
recently approved Short Plat (I-UA09-158) increased the size of the project parcel from 9.9 acres to 13.6 acres. As
part of the short plat the applicant is proposing the demolition of the restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales,
currently sited on the north portion of the parcel. The property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium
industrial (iM) and located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) and Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use
designations.
The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, 745 surface parking stalls and a 4,701
square -foot Garden Center. The proposed project area is predominately paved surfaces with areas of gravel just
north of the existing store location. The amount of impervious area would be increased by the proposal from
515,257 square feet to 528,863 square feet. New landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and
within the surface parking lots. Some excavation of existing soil would be necessary for the areas of proposed
expansions. The volume of the cut would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards and 9,500 cubic yards would be
brought in for fill to be balanced onsite.
Access would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7`h St, Hardie Ave SW, S
Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The proposed building would result in a lot coverage of 25.3 percent. The
tallest point of the proposed additions would be the top of the parapet on the proposed trespa panel fagade
treatment at the center of the eastern facade; which would have a height of 32 feet and 4 inches from existing
grade. The proposed expansion, on the northern facade, would have a height of 21 feet and 4 inches at the tallest
point as measured from existing grade which matches the top of the existing parapet.
The applicant has requested an administrative modification in order to downsize the refuse and recycle area from
the required 2,325 square feet to 30 cubic yards, as they are proposing the use of a self contained compactor which
has been engineered for high volume usage. Staff has reviewed the request and issued a decision on the
modification along with the SEPA Determination below in order to run the appeal periods concurrently (Exhibit 7).
There are 99 trees located onsite of which 15 are proposed for removal_ There are no known critical areas on or
near the site.
PARTTWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with RCW 43.23.0.240, the fallowing environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project
impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations.
A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials:
Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period.
B. Mitigation Measures
1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared
by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009,
ERC Report - Walmart Expansion
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Deveiopment Environmental Review Committee Report
WALMART EXPANSION
_
Report of March 22, 2010 LUA10-009, ECF, SA-H
Page 3 of 6 9
2. The applicant shalt comply with the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February
5, 2010, during project construction.
3. if pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration
study to the current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit apprpval. The City also reserves
the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven.
4. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the
applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the
requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work .shall
recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
S. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior
to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00.
f. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52
Per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00.
C. Exhibits
Exhibit 1
Zoning and N,figbborhood Detail Map
Exhibit 2
Site Plan
Exhibit
Landscape Plan
Exhlblt4;
North and South Elevations
Exhibit 5:
East and West Elevations
Exhibit 6:
Aerial Photo of Project Site
Exhibit 7:
Refuse and Recycle Modification Approval
D. Environmental impacts
The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the
applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction
with the proposed development Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following
Probable impacts:
I. Earth
Impacts: The site Is nearly level with average slopes at approximately 3 percent. The steepest slope on site
is located in a landscape area and Is approximately 20 percent. The site consists of native fine-grained soils
which are generally soft to soft to medium stiff and compressible, and native granular soils which range
from inose to very dense. Grading on the project site would be minimal and limited to the north and east
sides of the existing store. Earthwork quantities would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards of fill and 9,500
cubic yards of haul -out. Following development Impervious surface coverage will be approximately 99%.
A Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009, was submitted with the
project application. The recommendations in the report are based on an examination of material that
occurred in two phases. The preliminary subsurface evaluation consisted of 12 borings and the final
evaluation consisted of 40 borings. All borings ranged in depth from 11 / feet to 54 feet below existing site
grades,
The report includes design recommendations for site preparation and grading, excavation, foundation
support, slab -on -grade floors, drainage and pavements. The applicant is proposing to comply with the
recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. In
order to limit impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends, as a mitigation
measure, that project construction comply with the recommendations found In the geotechnical report
prepared by Terracon, dated [november 30, 2009.
ERC Report - Walm art Fypanslan
City of Renton Department of Community & EcOnomic DQvelopment Environmental Review Committee Report
WALMART IXPANSION _ L1IA10-oo9, ECF, SA-H
Report of March 22, 2010 Page 4�of 6
Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the
geotechnical report prepared byierracon, dated November 30, 2009,
!Nexus: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-4-060; SEPA Environmental Regulations
2. Water
a. Storm Water
Impacts, The project site is located within the Black River drainage basin of the Duwamish-Green River
Drainage watershed. The applicant submitted a "Technical Information Report," prepared by PACLAND.
(dated February 5, 2010) as part of the application materials. The applicant is proposing the removal of
29,700 square foot gravel commercial pad located just north of the existing structure. It would be
replaced with the expansion of store, surface parking stalls, new landscaped areas and a new bioswale.
The existing parking area would not be significantly modified from its existing layout, but would include
an overlay and minimal landscape island relocations. According to the Drainage Report, the increase in
impervious area would be 14,544 square feet; from 514,319 to 529,863 square feet.
Existing stormwater runoff from the site flows towards multiple existing catch basins where it is collected
and discharged to the existing stormwater conveyance system. The water flows to an existing
blofiltration swaie located in the northwestern portion of the site which was designed to treat the
existing parking lot areas. The bioswale provides treatment prior to the runoff being discharged to the
existing storm system in SW 7'f' Street.
As stated in the Technical Information Report, the proposed project improvements generate a 0.035 cfs
increase in the 100 -year peak flow rate. Because the post -developed peak flow is less than 0.5 cfs more
than the existing peak flow, the project is exempt from flow control requirements, Any offsite runoff that
currently flows onsite will continue to be conveyed via the existing storm system. The proposed
conveyance system has been designed to convey runoff for the new impervious surfaces. Additional
water quality treatment, in the form of a new bioswale is proposed, as the project would add more than
5,000 square feet of new pollution generating impervious surfaces.
The applicant is proposing to comply with the recommendations found in the Technical Information
Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 for both drainage and erasion control. In order to
limit drainage and erosion impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends the
applicant comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010
during project construction.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by
PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 during project construction.
Nexus: King County Surface Water Design Manual; SEPA Environmental Regulations
3. Environmental Health
a. Noise
Impacts: The Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009,
recommended the use of augercast piles in order to support the structure's foundation. In lieu of augercast
pile, the study indicates that the applicant could use small -diameter steel pipe piles in order to support the
structure. Noise and vibration impacts can be associated with pipe pile driving. Therefore staff
recommends, as a mitigation measure, if pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant
would be required to provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the day and hours of construction when
pipe piles are being driven.
Mitigation Measures: If the applicant uses pipe piles in order to support the proposed structure the
applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
ERC Report - Walmart Expansion
City of Renton Department of Community cot Economic Devefapment Environmental Review t.Omrnittee Report
WALMART EXPAIVSIOJV IUA10-009, ECF, SA H
Report of March 22, 2010 —
Page 5 of 6
permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe }piles
are being driven.
Nexus; SEPA Environmental Regulations
4. Historic and Cultural Preservation
Impacts: It is possible that archaeological artifacts or a historic site could be encountered during project
construction. This is due to the site's proximity to former archaeological discoveries. Should evidence of a
historic site be found during site development, work shall immediately cease and the Washington State of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation shall be contacted at (360) 586-3065. A survey shall be submitted
that conforms to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved
archaeologist.
In the event that cultural artifacts are found, worst cannot recommence until approval is received from the
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Mitigation Measures: Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, worst shall be
stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall
conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work
shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations
S. Transportation
Impacts: Access for the site would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts
along SW 7'h St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. There are three full access paints
along SW 7't' St a full access along Hardie Ave SW; a right in/right out access point along Rainier Ave S/SR
167; and a full access point along SIAL Grady Way.
ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated by the Development Services Division and shall be
in compliance with ADA standards when construction occurs on the site. No other street improvements
would be required for the proposal.
It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system and is
anticipated to generate 608 additional daily trips. A Transportation Impact Study, prepared by the Transpo
Group (dated October 2009), was submitted by the applicant and was approved by the Development
Services Division. The traffic study supported the estimate for 608 additional daily trips. In order to mitigate
transportation impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure be placed on the project requiring a
Transportation Mitigation l=ee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The
fee, at $75 per trip for the 608 new Baily trips anticipated, has been estimated -at $45,600.00 (608 trips x
75.00 = $45,600.00). This fee would be payable prior to issuance of the building permit.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new
net daily trip prior to Issuance of building permits_ The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00.
Nexus: Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution 3100; Ordinance 4489; SEPA Environmental Regulations
6. Fire & Police
Impacts: The Fire Prevention Bureau and the Police Department have Indicated they have the ability to
provide service to the project provided required improvements are made and a Fire Impact Fee is assessed.
The fee, at $0.5Z per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit,
The fee, at $0,52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472,00.
Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution 2895; SEPA Environmental Regulations
ERC Report - Walmart Expansion
5
City of Renton Department of Community & Ecanomlc Development Environmental Review Committee Report
WALMARTFVANSIDN LUAID-0179, ECF, SA -H
Report of March 22, 2010 Page 5 of 6
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their
comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Motes to Applicant,"
-/ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report.
Environmental Determination Appeal Process; Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 PM, April 16, 2010.
Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13 governs appeals to the Nearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed In writing
at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be
obtained from the City Clerk's Ciffice, Renton Clty Nail - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057.
ADVISORY NO TES TO APPLICANT
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action.
Because these notes are provided as information only, they are Trot subject to the appeal process for the land use actions.
P Ian n i nrr:
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:3o p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Division.
Water:
1. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is based on the size of water meter needed to service the development.
The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or
utility permit.
2. The existing fire hydrants may need to be fitted with Stortz fittings to bring them up to current City code.
Sanitary Sewer:
1. The Wastewater System Development Charge is also based on the size of water meter needed to service the
development. The SDC Is only triggered with a change or additions In number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a
construction or utility permit.
Surface Water:
1. The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area.
Minimums may apply, and this fee is payable with a construction or utility permit.
Transvortatlon:
1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip, as calculated by the ITE manual. Fees are due
with the building permit for all commercial structures. A traffic study supporting 608 daily trips was submitted.
2. ADA crossing Improvements are required to be evaluated and In compliance when construction occurs on the site.
Miscellaneous:
1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control pian shall be submitted for
approval prior to any permit being issued.
2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape Irrigation meter, and any backflow
devices will be required..
3. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.
4. A construction permit is required for any utility work. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two
copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application, and an appropriate fee shall be submltted to the
Citv Ball sixth floor counter.
EAC Report - Walmart E'xpansion,doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is
JU1_ 2 9 20IC,.,
RECcIVE�
QiTY CLEA S C�FFICF
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
FILE NO. LUA 10-009
I, JESSICA CLAWSON, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington, declare as follows;
I am an attorney with McCullough Hill, PS, attorneys for PacLand, and Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., applicant. On the date indicated below, I caused the copies of the APPLICANT'S
RESPONSE BRIEF, DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF, and this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE to be served via e-
mail and messenger service on:
CLAUDIA NEWMAN
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
1001 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 3303
SEATTLE, WA 98154
H
H
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 1 of 2
LAWAI OAR-RRenlonlC Council appeaRCertificate of 5enice0l.doc
McCullough Hill, PS
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, Washington 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
And by e-mail and U.S. Mail on:
LARRY WARREN
RENTON CITY ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 626
RENTON, WA 98057
DATED thit Zday of July, 2010, at Seattle, Washington.
SSICA AWSON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 2 of 2
0WAL46AARi1Ren1oMQty Council appeallCertilcate of SerAce0l.doc
McCullough Hill, PS
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, Washington 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RENTON
IN RE: WALMART EXPANSION SITE
PLAN APPROVAL
FILE NO.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
l V l.i ii 1 iw
LrFi s or-rfcE
r; ✓c/U/, fytchf
��:'��i'i Y✓i a�C� mf lYt�.
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON
NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY
GROWTH
I. INTRODUCTION
Wal -Mart's attempt to avoid consideration of the merits of RNHG's appeal by challenging
its standing and its purported failure to exhaust administrative remedies falls flat in many respects.
I The Renton Code allows parties who did not attend the Hearing Examiner hearing to appeal the
Examiner's decision to the City Council. RNHG is an interested and aggrieved party with a member
who lives near the development proposal site and who utilizes the roads that Wal-Mart traffic will
use and who will otherwise suffer direct adverse impacts from the development proposal. Therefore
RNHG has standing to bring the appeal.
Wal -Mart's argument that RNHG failed to exhaust its administrative remedies is incorrect
and nonsensical and is based on a misunderstanding of the exhaustion doctrine. That doctrine
requires a parry to exhaust administrative remedies provided by the City's ordinance before tiling a
superior court challenge to the City's decision. RNHG is in the process of exhausting its
administrative remedies and has taken all requisite steps toward that end. RNHG presented all of the
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attomq s at Law
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 1 10"1 I ouTth Awriuc, swtc 3303
icatdc N\ A 98154
Td. (206) 2(A-86(10
FaN (2D6) 264-931H1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
issues that are currently on appeal to the Examiner, the Examiner ruled on those issues, and RNHG
filed a timely appeal with the City Council, which is currently underway.
Perhaps it is because Wal-Mart has no credible argument in response to the merits of
RNHG's appeal that Wal-Mart has attempted to challenge standing and exhaustion. There is no
dispute that the proposal is violating the maximum setback requirements and the prohibition against
expansion of non -conforming uses in the City of Renton Code. Wal -Mart's response is the
incredible notion that the Urban Design Regulations somehow supersede these requirements and
Wal-Mart can violate setback requirements and expand a non -conforming use as a result. There is
no hint of such an idea in the Renton Code.
The true irony of that defense is that Wal -Mart's proposal is precisely the opposite of what
the Urban Design Regulations envision. It undermines the goal of a walkable, pedestrian -friendly,
visually stimulating area by expanding a non -conforming franchise retail store with a sea of asphalt
located between the building and the front property line. There can be no question that the Hearing
Examiner's decision approving this expansion was in error and should be reversed.
II. STANDING AND EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
A. Renton Nei hbors for Healthy Growth Has Standing to Bring This A eal
I . The Renton Code allows parties who did not attend_ the Hearing Examiner
hearing to appeal the Examiner's decision to the City Council
RNHG is an interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's decision and, thus, has authority to
bring this appeal to the City Council. The Renton City Code states:
Any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or
recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the city clerk, upon
a form furnished by the city clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days
from the date of the Examiner's written report.
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 2
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attomces at Lau
In11 Foutth Avenuc, Suite 33E13
ScatticWA )8154
Tel {2( ,6) 214-96011
Fav (2116) 2G4-9300
I RMC 4-8-110(F)(1) (emphasis supplied). The Renton Code does not limit the right of appeal to
2 individuals who attended the hearing, rather it allows "any interested party" who is "aggrieved" to
i
appeal a Hearing Examiner's decision.
4
When a local code provisions gives a right of appeal to "any interested party" aggrieved
5
6 by the decision, the class of persons allowed to appeal goes beyond individuals or groups who
7 participated in the administrative hearing. Courts have confirmed that there is a distinction
8 between code language that allows "any interested party aggrieved" to appeal a decision and code
9 language that allows only a "parry of record in the administrative proceeding" to appeal:
10 While some review statutes have confined the right of review to
11 persons who were parties of record in the administrative proceeding,
it is clear that provisions which authorize review at the instance of a
12 person aggrieved are intended to create a broader class of persons
13 with standing to seek judicial review.
14 Sterling v. Spokane County, 31 Wn. App. 467, 472, 642 P.2d 1255 (1982), quoting 4 R. Anderson,
15 Zoning § 25.10 (2nd ed. 1977).
16 Where the statute allows appeals to "persons aggrieved," the standards for standing to appeal
17 are less restrictive. Id. at 473, citing 4 R. Anderson, Zoning, § 25.09, § 25.10; see 3 A. Rathkopf,
18 Zoning and Planning, § 43.01 (4"' ed. 1981).
19
Adjoining ... landowners may therefore be persons "aggrieved"
20 ... The particular landowner would be "aggrieved" regardless of
whether he appeared and became a party to the hearing before the
21 board ... His legal interest would be no less affected due to a
22 failure to appear and object.
23 Sterling v. Spokane County, at 474, quoting Stout v_ Mercer, 160 Ind. App. 454, 312 N.E.2d 515,
24 520 (1974). The Renton Code could not be more clear — it allows a broad class of persons to
25 appeal a Hearing Examiner decision and nowhere requires that appellants of that decision to have
26
attended the open record hearing held by the Hearing Examiner before making his decision.
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 3
BrieUn & Newman, LLP
Attomevs at Lau -
U111] Fourth Avcnue, Suite 3363
Seattle YVA 98154
1e1. (2116) 264866)
1-a.\ (21.16) 264-93110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0
2. Factual evidence that demonstrates the right to appeal is admissible on
appeal
Wal-Mart argues that because there is no evidence in the Hearing Examiner's record
showing that RNHG is aggrieved by the Examiner's decision, the record lacks any evidence that
RNHG has standing.
An appellate body will consider declarations to determine whether appellants can satisfy a
prerequisite to the appellate body's jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that evidence
for standing is allowed to be submitted to the appellate body on appeal of a closed record:
BPA cited several cases for the proposition that parties appealing
agency decisions cannot supplement the record on appeal. These
cases are inapposite because they address the merits of the agency
decision rather than standing to challenge that decision in a federal
court. See, e_g., Seattle Community Council Fed'n v. FAA, 961 F.2d
829, 834, n.3 (9"' Cir. 1992). Because Article III's standing
requirement does not apply to agency proceedings, petitioners had no
reason to include facts sufficient to establish standing as part of the
administrative record. We therefore consider the affidavits not in
order to supplement the administrative record on the merits, but rather
to determine whether petitioners can satisfy a prerequisite to the
court's jurisdiction. Didrickson v. United States Department of
Interior, 982 F.2d 1332, 1340 (9t' Cir. 1992) (accepting appellant-
intervenor's supplemental declaration alleging particularized injury
because intervenors were not required to establish standing until they
appealed).
NW Envtl. Defense Ctr, v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117 F.3d 1520, 152.7-28 (9' Cir. 1997).
Evidence to prove standing is also admissible on appeal beyond the record under the Administrative
Procedure Act, RCW 34.05.566 and the Land Use Petition Act, RCW 36.700.120. See Washington
Independent Tel. Assn v. Wash. Ulil. & Transp. Comm'n, 110 Wn. App. 498, 518, 41 P.3d 1212
(2002); RCW 36.700.120.
The question of whether a party is "aggrieved" and, therefore, has a right to appeal to the
City Council was not an issue considered by the Renton Hearing Examiner. There is no requirement
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attomcpc at Lain
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 4 "ul I'°°`fl x,7sa4"'.�"`
yea1tic 11' �1 7 98154
'['el. (206) 264 8600
has. (206) 2649301,
1 that a party who attends or participates in the Hearing Examiner hearing or, for that matter, files a
2 request for reconsideration with the Examiner, be "aggrieved." See RMC 4-8-100 ("any interested
3
person" may request reconsideration of the Examiner's decision). RNHG had no reason to include
4
facts sufficient to establish standing before the Examiner. The first time that a party is required to
5
6 demonstrate that it is "aggrieved" is before the City Council. The Council should consider evidence
7 to determine whether appellants can satisfy a prerequisite to the City Council's jurisdiction.
8 3. RNHG is an interested and aggrieved party
9 RNHG is an interested party that is aggrieved by the impacts of the Wal-Mart Expansion
10 Site Plan because at least one member who lives near the proposal site and who will be aggrieved
11
by the land use change and the impacts from increased traffic.
12
An organization has standing when at least one of its members has standing as an
13
14 individual. Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Kitsap County, 92 Wn. App. 816, 830, 965 P.2d 636
15 (1998). An individual who lives near a development proposal site and who utilizes the road or
16 would otherwise suffer direct adverse impacts from increased traffic caused by that development
17 proposal is aggrieved by the proposal. Id. at 832.
18 Cindy Wheeler, a member of RNHG, lives approximately 1,500 feet as the crow flies
19
from the Wal-Mart proposal site. Declaration of Cindy Wheeler (Aug. 4, 2010). She frequently
20
21 uses the shopping areas near her home and regularly drives on streets that would be impacted by
22 the additional traffic that the Wal-Mart expansion will create. Id., ¶ 3. The existing traffic
23 situation is problematic for her and adding to that traffic will adversely impact her. Id. Ms.
24 Wheeler is adversely affected by panhandlers in the area who sit at traffic corners. Id., 4.
25 There is a direct correlation between the heavy traffic and the presence of panhandlers asking for
26
money as people sit at traffic lights. Id Adding more traffic will increase that problem and
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 5
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Atmmevs at Lan
'I 0()1 Pourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle \X.A )Al 54
Tel_ (21 6) 264-8600
1'az. (206) 264-2i(K)
I increase the adverse impact to Ms. Wheeler. Id. Ms. Wheeler has also testified that if the Wal -
2 Mart area was better for walking and if the panhandlers were gone, she would use and enjoy a
3
more walkable shopping area. Id., ¶ 5.
4
Because RNHG has a member who is an aggrieved interested party, RNHG has standing
5
6 to appeal the City Council decision.
7 4. RNHG is not raising: SEPA issues in this anneal
8 Wal-Mart repeatedly points out that a SEPA decision was made and RNHG did not appeal
9 that decision.' RNHG did not raise any SEPA issues in its appeal. The question of whether RNHG
10 has filed a SEPA appeal is not relevant to the issue of exhaustion or standing before the Council in
1i
its appeal of the site plan approval.
12
B. RNHG is in the Process of Exhausting Its Administrative Remedies
13
14 Wal -Mart's argument that RNHG failed to exhaust its administrative remedies is incorrect
15 and nonsensical and is based on a complete misunderstanding of the exhaustion doctrine.
3.6 1. The exhaustion doctrine
17 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is well established in Washington.
18 Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 866, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997).
19
It is a legal doctrine that requires a party to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by a
20
21 local jurisdiction's ordinances before filing a superior court challenge to an action taken by that a
22 local jurisdiction. Id. In other words, a party who is challenging the granting or denial of a
23 certain land use decision must generally follow the steps that local ordinances provide for
24
25 ' In its brief, Wal-Mart says "for unexplained reasons, RNHG failed to appeal the City's MDNS ..."
That is an odd statement considering that RNHG has explained more than once that it became aware of the project on
26 or about May 17, 2010. Clearly, the group did not file an appeal because it had no notice of knowledge about the
project at that time.
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 6
Sricklin & Newman, LLP
Attomeys at Law
11N11 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle WA 98154
Tel. (206) 2648600
Fax. (206) 2649.3011
0
0
1 appealing the decision before appealing to state superior court, Citizens fc�r Mount Iiernon v.
2 Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d at 866.
3
The rule provides that "in general, an agency action cannot be challenged on review until
4
all rights of administrative appeal have been exhausted." Id., citing Spokane County Fire
5
6 Protection District 9 v. Spokane County Boundary Review Board, 97 Wn.2d 922, 928, 652 P.2d
7 1356 (1982).
8 The exhaustion rule is not absolute. Prisk v_ City of Poulsbo, 46 Wn. App. 793, 797, 732
9 P.2d 1013 (1987). When addressing problems involving the exhaustion of remedies rule,
10 reviewing courts necessarily exercise a great deal of discretion. Id. The exhaustion rule is one of
11
restraint, requiring courts to weigh and balance many factors in order to decide whether requiring
12
exhaustion is desirable. Id. When consideration of fairness and practicality outweigh the policies
13
14 underlying the doctrine, compliance with the rule is unnecessary. Id. at 797-798, citing Orion
15 Corp. v. State, 103 Wn.2d 441, 693 P.2d 1369 (1985).
16 The Washington Supreme Court has made it clear that the central purpose of the
17 exhaustion doctrine is to allow for the issues to first be raised before the agency. Citizens,for
18 Mount Vernon v_ City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d at 869, citing King County v. King County
19
Boundary Review Board, 122 Wn.2d 648, 668, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). The exhaustion principle
20
21 is founded upon the belief that the judiciary should give proper deference to that body possessing
22 expertise in areas outside the conventional experience of judges. Id, citing South Hollywood
23 Citizens v. King County, 101 Wn.2d 68. 73, 677 P.2d 114 (1984). Among other things, the
24 policies underlying this principle include protecting the local jurisdiction's autonomy by allowing
25 it to correct its own errors and ensuring that individuals were not encouraged to ignore
26
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 7
BrickIin & Newman, LLP
Attomevs at Lain
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suitc 3303
Seattle 1CA 98154
'I cl. (2(16) 264-8GUn
Fas, (2(16) 26493(111
0
1 procedures by resorting to the courts. Mc Cart v. United States,395 U.S. 185, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23
2 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969).
3
2. RNHG is in the process of exhausting its, administrative remedies and has
4 taken all requisite steps toward that end
5 As mentioned above, Wal -Mart's argument regarding exhaustion is both incorrect and
6 nonsensical. It is incorrect because RNHG has taken all requisite steps under the code to exhaust
7
administrative remedies. RNHG presented all of the issues that are currently on appeal to the
8
Hearing Examiner prior to filing this appeal. RNHG became aware of the project on or about May
9
10 17, 2010 for the first time. The group filed a timely request for reconsideration on May 27, 2010
11 with the Hearing Examiner asking that the Examiner reconsider his decision on several grounds. See
12 Letter from Claudia M. Newman to Fred Kaufman dated May 27, 2010. The issues raised were the
1 same issues that are raised by appellants on appeal. Not only did RNHG participate before the
14 Examiner to the full extent necessary as required by the Code, but the policies underlying the
15
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies have been fulfilled because the issues on appeal
16
17 were presented to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner considered the questions presented
18 and ruled on those questions on reconsideration. See Letter from Fred Kaufman to Claudia
19 Newman dated July 10, 2010. Now, RNHG is presenting these issues to the Council on appeal as
20 the Code requires prior to any potential judicial review. The City Council has the benefit of
21 reviewing the Hearing Examiner's decision on those issues.
22
The argument that RNHG failed to exhaust its administrative remedies is nonsensical
23
because the City Council appeal that RNHG is pursuing with this briefing is the administrative
24
25 remedy provided by the Renton Code. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a judicial doctrine
26 requiring compliance with a City code appeal process before resorting to superior court. RNHG is
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attomccs at Law
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 8 1""' F°Scatdc attiW° 544`` 3"'
1L"A 98154
Td. (206) 264-861 W
Fax_ (2116)264-931w)
0 9
1 currently engaged in the requisite administrative process. RNHG is currently exhausting its
2 administrative remedies by pursuing this appeal with the City Council. The City Council's decision
3
will be final and thus a Court would rule that the administrative remedies have been exhausted if any
4
judicial appeal were fled. The requisite step provided as an administrative remedy in the Renton
5
6 Code for this site plan approval is an appeal to the City of Renton City Council. The Hearing
7 Examiner had original jurisdiction and there is no requirement in the Code that parties who seek an
8 appeal actually attend the hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
9 III. THE MERITS OF RNHG' S APPEAL
10 A. The Standard of Review for Legal Issues is Broader Than That for Factual Issues
11
There is an important distinction that must be recognized between appellate review of errors
12
in fact and appellate review of errors of law. Questions of fact call for the "substantial evidence"
13
14 standard that Wal-Mart repeatedly refers to in its response. Benchmark Land Co, v. City of
15 Battleground, 146 Wn.2d 685, 694, 49 P.3d 860 (2002). For example, when reviewing the
16 conclusion of how far the building is located from the street (100 feet? More?) or how many trips
17 will be generated by the store (600 trips? More?), the Council is reviewing a factual issue.
18
Questions of law, on the other hand, are reviewed under the "de novo" standard of review. Waste
19
Management of'Seattle, Inc, v. Utilities and Transp. Comm'n, 123 Wn.2d 621, 627,869 P.2d 1034
20
21 (1994). For example, questions regarding interpretation of provisions of the City Code are questions
22 of law.
23 The Renton Code states that if the Council determines that "a substantial error in fact or law
24 exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or it may
25 modify or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly." RMC 4-8-110(F)(7). "Substantial
26
error in law" is unusual wording that is not often (if ever) found in administrative review case law or
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 9
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Artornm at I.iw
1001 Fourth Avenue, Swim 330
Seattle WA 4B 154
l'el. (200,264-9601;
Pax. (206) 264 93W
0
0
1 statutes. It must be distinguished from. the "substantial evidence" standard that Wal-Mart refers to.
2 The "substantial evidence" standard is solely for review of factual conclusions in case law and
3
appellate review statutes.
4
The distinction is important because an appellate body has greater authority to reverse the
5
6 lower tribunal on legal issues. The majority of issues presented in this appeal are questions of law,
7 not fact. Wal-Mart incorrectly suggests that the "substantial evidence standard" applies to every
8 issue and gives short shrift to the error of law standard and the Council's broad authority under that
4 standard.
10 B. The Desi rg � Regulations Do Not Supersede Code Provisions That Prohibit the Illeilal
11 Expansion of a Non -Conforming Stricture
12 As was set out in RNHG's Opening Brief, an illegally established building or structure may
13 remain only if certain conditions set forth in RMC 4-10-050 are met. Here, those conditions were
14 not met. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion should be
15
reversed on grounds that the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming
16
structure.
17
18 Wal-Mart presents the remarkable argument that RMC 4-10-050(A)(4) does not apply to
19 the Wal-Mart project because the Urban Design Regulations somehow supersede other provisions
20 of the Renton Municipal Code, including the non -conforming provisions. That is an incredible
21 statement that has no support whatsoever in the Code. It is a tortured reading of RMC 4-3-
22 100(B) that supports Wal -Mart's claim to say the least.
23
It is important that the complete language of the relevant Code provision be placed front and
24
25
center for the Council's review because it is only then that the Council can recognize the ill -
26 conceived nature of Wal -Mart's argument. The Urban Design Regulations state:
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attumcrx at law
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH — 10 1001 Fourth Avcnvc, 4« 33cr3
Scatllc 1�'A )81
54
Tut. (Zn6) 264-8601
Fax (2116) 2C4 -93x -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0 0
4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS:
A. PURPOSE:
1. These urban design regulations are established in accordance
with and to implement policies established in the Land Use and
Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan.
These standards are divided into seven areas.
a. Site design and building location;
b. Parking and vehicular access-,
C. Pedestrian environment;
d. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space;
e. Building Architectural Design;
f. Signage;
g. Lighting.
2, This Section lists elements that are required to be included in
all development in the zones stated in subsection BI of this Section.
Each element includes an intent statement, standards, and guidelines.
In order to provide predictability, standards are provided. These
standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can
be met. In order to provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for
each element. These guidelines and the intent statement provide
direction for those who seek to meet the required element in a manner
that is different from the standards.
a. The determination as to the satisfaction of the
requirement through the use of the guidelines and the intent statement
is to be made by the Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee.
b. When the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee has determined
that the proposed manner of meeting the design requirement through
the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be
required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with
the guideline that has been approved. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-2003; Ord.
5124, 2-7-2005; Ord. 5286, 5-14-2047; Ord. 5355, 2-25-2008; Ord.
5531, 3-8-2010)
B. APPLICABILITY AND CONFLICTS:
1. Applicability:
Brickiin & Newman, LLP
Attomei s at T,a�
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 1 1 1°`" Tau h Aven°`'s""e 3303
Seattle WA 99154
Tea. (2( 6) 264-8600
Fay. (21() 264 93W
0 0
1 a. The following development activities shall be required
2 to comply with the provisions of this Section:
3 i. All subdivisions including short plats;
ii. All new structures;
4 iii. Conversion of vacant land (e.g., to parking or
storage lots);
5 iv. Conversion of a residential use to a
nonresidential use;
6 V. Alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations
7 of nonconforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050.
g b. Any of the activities listed in subsection B 1 a of this
Section and occurring in the following overlay areas or zone shall be
9 required to comply with the provisions of this section. Big box retail
10 as outlined below shall also be required to comply with the provisions
of this section.
11
i. Mapped Overlays: This Section shall apply to all
12 development occurring in design districts as indicated on the Urban
Design Districts map, subsection B3 of this Section. To clarify the
13 map, the Center Downtown (CD) Zone is located in District `A,'
14 South Renton and the Residential Multi -Family (RMF) zone located
within the Center Village Land Use Designation are District 'B," and
15 the Urban Center — North Zones are located within District `C.'
District 'C' also includes the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)
16 Zone. Areas within Center Village Land Use Designation zoned
Center Village (CV) shall comprise District `D.'
17
18 ii. Big Box Retail: This Section shall also apply to big-
box
ibbox retail use. In the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, big -box retail
19 uses are subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to
District `D,' except in the Employment Area — Valley (EAV) south of
20 Interstate 405, where big -box retail uses must comply with design
standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center — North
21 (District 'C'). Big -box retail uses in the EAV south of Interstate 405
22 outside of the CA zone are not subject to Urban Design Regulations.
23 As you read through the Urban Design Regulations, you see that they are established to
24 implement the Comprehensive Plan and there are standards set forth for design that specify a
25 prescriptive manner in which design requirements may be met. RMC 4-3-100(A). In particular,
26
Section B addresses the applicability of the design regulations. That section indicates what types
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 12
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attomers at F.an-
t001 Fourth 'V CIIue, Suite 3303
Seattle %X'n 98154
Tel (2r16) 2.64-8010
Fes, (206: 264-9.300
0
I of development activities are required to comply with the design regulations. Nowhere does this
2 provision suggest that they supersede any other provisions of the Renton Municipal Code.
3
Nowhere does the Code state that these regulations supersede the nonconforming provisions in
4
RMC 4-10-050(A)(4). The Urban Design Regulations exist in addition to and on top of other
5
6 regulations in the Code as an "overlay." Not even the staff report adopts this incredible idea that
7 somehow projects are exempt from the non -conforming provisions by the Urban Design
g Regulations.
9 The regulations plainly indicate that alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of non -
10 conforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050 are required to comply with the design
11
regulations. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v). There is no credible reading of that section to suggest in
12
any way that it somehow excuses alterations, enlargements, and restorations of non -conforming
13
14 structures from compliance with RMC 4-10-050. That section simply states that those types of
15 development activities must comply with the design regulations. In fact, it affirms that
16 alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of non -conforming structures must follow RMC 4-
17
-17 10-050 in addition to complying with the design regulations.
18 Wal -Mart's argument that it is not required to comply with RMC 4-10-050(A)(4)
19
implicitly admits the obvious conclusion as was set forth in RNHG's Opening Brief that the
20
21 project is not in compliance with those requirements. The approval of the Wal-Mart project
22 should be reversed on this basis.
23
24
25
26
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH — 13
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Arrome". at Law
1001 Fourth Avenuc, Suitc 3303
Seattle WA 98154
'I el. (2DO, 264 8600
ba.. (200) 26¢9301,
LJ
1
2 C. The Design Regulations Do Not Supersede the Code's Maximum Frontage Setback
Requirement
4 As was fully explained in RNHG's Opening Brief, the Hearing Examiner's decision
5 approving the Wal-Mart expansion should be reversed because the project does not comply with the
6 maximum frontage setback requirement in the Renton City Code.
7
Wal-Mart again presents the same baffling argument that has absolutely no basis in the
S
Code to claim that Wal -Mart's proposal is not required to abide by setback requirements of the
9
10 Code because it is excused from doing so by the design regulations. Wal-Mart argues that the
11 "flexibility" in application of the design guidelines allows it to disregard the setback requirements
12 in an entirely different section of the Code. Even if the City Council believed that somehow the
13 Code allows a proposal to completely disregard the design regulations, that by no means also
14 allows a developer to disregard the setback requirements set forth in the CA zone. Wal -Mart's
15
interpretation is completely inconsistent with the plain language of the Renton Code for the same
16
17 reasons explained above with respect to the non -conforming provisions.
18 D, The Wal-Mart Proposal Violates the Design Regulations Applicable to District D
19 The Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion proposal should be
20 reversed because the proposal violates the City's design regulations applicable to District D.
21 1. Evidence in the record shows overwhelmin lv that the proposal is
22 inconsistent with the design regulations
23 Wal-Mart argues that there is no evidence in the hearing record that shows the project does
24 not comply with the design guidelines. To the contrary, the evidence showing noncompliance is
25 overwhelming. The record could not be more clear — the Wal-Mart proposal is inconsistent with at
26
least 20 minimum standards in the design regulations. See Preliminary Report to the Examiner (Apr.
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 14
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
AnDmey.,' at Law
11101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
ti�atL WA 98154
Td. (216)2(A-86uu
Fa, (2116) 264-93111]
0 9
1 27, 2010). In the Preliminary Report to the Examiner, the staff incorporated a table in its review of
2 compliance with District D Design Guidelines. Ick. Throughout the table, the staff reported
3
repeatedly that the project is "not compliant" with various minimum standards listed. Therefore, the
4
evidence is there and that is not the issue presented. The issue presented is whether the Code allows
5
6 that non-compliance and that is a legal issue, not a factual issue.
7 2. Substantial evidence is not the proper standard of review
g Wal-Mart states "to overcome its burden of proof, RNHG must cite to substantial evidence
9 in the record.'' RMC 4-5-100(F)(9). Substantial evidence is not the correct standard to apply to
10 this issue. The question here is not one of whether the facts show that there are violations of the
I1
regulations — clearly there are such violations.
12
The question presented is whether a proposal must comply with the design guidelines set
13
14 forth in RMC 4-3-100. That is a legal question requiring the Council to interpret the Renton
15 Code.
16 3. Compliance with the design regulations is mandatory
17 The issue presented by Wal-Mart is whether compliance with the design regulations is
18 mandatory or whether the code allows developers "flexibility" to disregard those standards. To
19
address that issue, we refer to the language of RMC 4-3-100(A), which is quoted in full in Section
20
21 III(B) of this brief. As was established in RNHG's Opening Brief, the design regulations repeatedly
22 state that the standards are required to be included in a redevelopment. This project, without
23 question, is required to comply with the design regulations applicable for District D. RMC 4-3-
24 100(13)(1)(b).
25 Wal-Mart and the Examiner are confusing the idea of optional compliance with prescriptive
26
standards. Both appear to believe that adherence to the design regulations is optional since the
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attomm at LA"
RL.PLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 15 1111 roSecaotttt le. 'q�\''914-IA 99`154 33"'
"f'el. (a)6) 264 -KV)
7.as. (205) 254-9300
I Renton Code provision suggests that the decision maker has discretion in determining how the
2 guidelines are met. The decision maker does not have discretion in determining whether the
3
guidelines are met -- they must be met. There are simply allowances for creative design to meet
4
those standards. In this case, the standards were simply not met at all. There are no creative design
5
6 options to show that the prescriptive standard has been met in any way. The standards are identified
7 as "prescriptive," which means that there is flexibility in approach to meeting the end requirement.
g But the requirement is a requirement — it must be met and it was not.
9 E. The Trip Generation Estimate for the Wal-Mart Expansion is Incorrect Because It
10 Fails to Consider the Known Trip Generation for This Project
11 As RNHG pointed out in its Opening Brief, the traffic report reveals that this particular Wal -
12 Mart produces far more than average traffic. RNHG has retained a traffic expert who will testify
13 that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing
14 source numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of that store. Rather than counting traffic for
15
the existing store and analyzing the counts using those existing numbers, Transpo simply utilized the
16
ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too
17
18 low for this higher than average traffic producing site.
19 Wal-Mart argues that the City Council must reject RNHG's introduction of evidence into the
20 record on the grounds that it is prohibited by RMC 4-5-110(F)(5). In this case, the parties did not
21 receive notice of the hearing and, therefore, did not attend. The parties did learn of the proposal
22 within the reconsideration timeline and made a timely request for an opportunity to present the
23
evidence that it could not present at the hearing. It is within the City Council's jurisdiction and
24
25 ability to allow this evidence to be submitted. The traffic issues raised in RNHG's appeal are not
26 raised as SEPA issues, rather they are raised as issues related to the substantive permit approval.
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 16
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
:%i OmCl't at La,
ia)l Fourth A'- Umc, Suite 3303
S111L WA98154
d (200} 364-860n
f -ax. (2066 264-)3ui 1
I Wal-Mart argues that the traffic claims raised by RNHG must be denied because the
2 evidence in the record supports the Hearing Examiner's finding that RMC 4-9-200(E)(1)(f) was met.
3
RNHG recognizes that the evidence in the record supports the finding and RNHG's request is to
4
offer evidence that proves that his finding is incorrect.
5
6 Wal-Mart argues that RNHG is barred from raising issues relating to traffic because it failed
7 to appeal the MDNS. The Site Development Plan Review Criteria as set forth in Section 4-9-200 of
8 the Renton Municipal Code require mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses and
9 safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation. RNHG has a right to challenge the
10 appropriateness of the traffic impact study based on those provisions of the Code.
11 Dated this day of August, 2010.
12
Respectfully submitted,
13
14 BRICKLIN & NEWM LP
15
By: — Z Z
16 Claudia M. Newman, WSBA No. 24928
Attorneys for Renton Neighbors for Healthy
17 Growth
RNHG\Reply Brief
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 17
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Anomers aT I au-
11ttri Fourth Avenue, Suite 330.3
Seatti, NV'A 98154
Tcl- (2116)264-8600
Fa,. (206) 264-93(m 1
08/04/20--:0-WED 16:48 FAX 206 436 6740 Membership Copier Room
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RENTON
IN RE: WALMART EXPANSION SITE
PLAN APPROVAL
DECLARATION OF CINDY
FILE NO.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H WHEELER
I, CINDY WHEELER, declare as follows:
12002/003
-. aw
siECEIV Q
iTv LffERK'S OFF ICE
I . I am a member of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth and I make this declaration
based upon my own personal knowledge. I am over the age of 21 years old.
2. I live at 425 SW Fifth Place in Renton, Washington. My house is approximately
11,500 feet as the crow flies from the Wal-Mart proposal site.
3. 1 frequently use all of the shopping areas near my home. I regularly drive on Hardee
Avenue SW, Rainier Avenue S, and SW Seventh Street, and SW Sunset Boulevard, which are all
streets that will be impacted by the additional traffic that the Wal-Mart expansion will create. The
existing traffic situation is very bad and adding to that traffic will adversely impact me.
4. One big concern that I have is the amount of panhandlers in the area. They are there
because of the heavy traffic. The panhandlers frighten me and I try to avoid them as much as
possible. Adding more traffic will increase this problem.
DECLARATION OF CINDY WHEELER - 1
BrickUn & Newman, LLP
Arwme7s at law
loo! Fourth Avenue, S+we 3307
Seaak WA 98154
Tel. ('206)264-M
Fax. (206) 264-1300
08/01/2a Q WED 16:0$ FAX 206 436 6700 Membership Copier Room
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
003/003
5. If the Wal-Mart area was better for walking and if the panhandlers were gone, I
I would use and enjoy a more walkable shopping area.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this LA_ day of August, 2010, at ( C.F . Washington.
RNH=ec of Cindy Wheeler
DECLAI ATION OF CINDY WHEELER - 2
CINDY WHEELER
Bnicklin & Newman, LLP
1001 iwurth Avcnuc, Suitc 3343
5exale WA 98154
Tel. (206)264-96M
Pax. (206) 264.9300
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF RENTON
IN RE: WALMART EXPANSION SITE
PLAN APPROVAL
FILE NO.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
} ss.
COUNTY OF KING }
f ,41 ,CrY;
CITY GLTRKS OFF;(: E_
i
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
L PEGGY S. CAHILL, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington, declare as follows:
I am the legal assistant for Bricklin & Newman, LLP, attorneys for Renton Neighbors for
Healthy Growth herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Reply Brief
of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth and Declaration of Cindy Wheeler to be served on:
City Clerk
City of Renton
7t' Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
[ ] By United States Mail
P(By Legal Messenger
] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail
] By E -Mail
DECLARATION OF SERVICE - I
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attomces A Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, Stutc 3303
Seattle',X A 98154
I'cl. (2136) 2648600
Fax. (206) 2649300
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•
Julia Medzigian
City Council Liaison
City of Renton Mayor's Office
7th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
[ ] By United States Mail
N'By Legal Messenger
[ ] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail
[ ] By E -Mail
Lawrence J. Warren—lwarrenkc rentonwa.gov
City of Renton 4
100 S. 2nd Street
P.O. Box 626
Renton, WA 98457-0626
[]� By United States Mail
[ ] By Legal Messenger
[ ] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail
{ By E -Mail
John C. McCullough — jackgmhseattle.com
Jessica M. Clawson — Jessiemhseattle.com
McCullough & Hill
701 5th Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
[ By United States Mail
[ ] By Legal Messenger
[ ] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail
[] By E -Mail
s
DATED this 5HA day of_ A� , 2014, at Seattle, Washington.
T
- . C'24'�
PEGGY S. tAHILL
Renton',Decsv- County Council
DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2
Sriddin & Newman, LLP
Atromeys at Lam
Mit Fourth Avenue, Suite 330")
Seattle k1 A 98154
1'cl, (206) 264 86IM1
Fax. (206) 26493gn
14
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
- - -,r-_', F',
JFFiC
J1,
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RENTON
IN RE: WALMART EXPANSION SITE
PLAN APPROVAL
FILE NO.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON
NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY
GROWTH
1. INTRODUCTION
The Hearing Examiner improperly approved Wal -Mart's proposal to expand its existing
store on Rainier Avenue South. The proposal is for an illegal expansion of a nonconforming
structure and the proposal violates many provisions in the City Code. The Examiner was
apparently under the mistaken impression that the Code allows a non -conforming structure to be
expanded and still remain nonconforming, The Examiner acknowledged that the project was
inconsistent with certain Code provisions, but approved it nonetheless because, as he
characterized it:
.. , while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer
code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and
clearly enhances the existing building's appearance.... Maybe the
next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce
the sea of asphalt.
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHYArtomevs at La„
1001 Fourth Avenue, Swte 33(13
GROWTH- 1 Seartle WA 98134
1 { Tel. (2()6)264-861J0
Fa. (206) 2(,4 931x]
LAA -A `�
11
21'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (¶ 16) (hereinafter referred to as
"Examiner Decision"). Therefore, instead of requiring that Wal-Mart conform to the current
Code requirements, the Examiner imagined that "it might be nice" if Wal-Mart would comply
with the current Code and expressed a hope that the "next remodel" would be better. Any hope
that Wal-Mart would do anything better in any future remodel is a lost hope considering that
Wal -Mart's experience so far has been an approval despite being inconsistent with the regulations
as they exist today.
There is simply no legal basis for the Examiner's Decision to approve the Wal-Mart
expansion. The City's obligation and duty is to require that the development be consistent with
the Code. When regulations are not met, the project must either be changed or denied. If a
proposal cannot meet certain code requirements, the developer has the option of requesting
amendments to the Code through the legislative process before submitting a proposal.
RNHG requests that the City Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's approval of the
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan and deny the proposal for the reasons expressed herein.
II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
A. Whether the Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion
should be reversed because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming
structure.
B. Whether the Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion
should be reversed because the proposal does not comply with the maximum frontage setback
requirement in the Renton City Code.
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY
GROWTH- 2
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
!lttomeys at Law
11N71 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3,703
Seattle X 'A 99154
Tel (206) 264-8600
Pa. (2()6) 264-93(K)
0 0
1 C. Whether the Hearing Examiner decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion
2 proposal should be reversed because it violates the City's design regulations applicable to District
3
D in RMC 4-3-100.
4
D. Whether the City Council should reverse the Hearing Examiner decision and, if
5
6 necessary after deciding the above issues, remand the Hearing Examiner's decision with
7 instructions that the Hearing Examiner receive and review evidence concerning the predicted trip
8 generation for the expansion and that he issue a new decision on that issue.
9 III. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
10 A. The Wal-Mart Expansion Proposal
11
On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Pacland filed an application. on February S, 2010 for
12
Site Plan review of a proposal to expand and convert the existing Wal-Mart Discount Store
13
14 located at 743 Rainier Avenue South into a Superstore. AR Ex. L' The existing Wal-Mart
15 contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the
16 Garden Center. Id. (Preliminary Report to the Examiner). The proposal for the new Superstore
17 proposes to add 16,000 square feet to the retail space and reduce the Garden Center by 4,000
18 square feet. Id. The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, 745
19
surface parking stalls, and a 4,701 square foot Garden Center. Id.
20
21 The project site is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial
22 (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations within Urban Design District "D," Id.
23
24
25
"AR" refers to the administrative record before the Hearing Examiner. The Examiner identified
26 and numbered exhibits from the April 27, 2010 hearing in his decision.
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY """rnG'Su'
1{1111 14;urth •Ice nuv, e, Sure 3363
GROWTH- 3 Seatlr WA 98154
Tel. (24,) 264-Mou
1-a� (206) 264 9300
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B. The City's Review of the Proposal
A public hearing was held before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on Tuesday, April
27, 2010. Examiner Decision at 1. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the
Examiner issued a decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan on May 13, 2010. Id.
Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth (RNHG) became aware of the project on or about
May 17, 2010. The group filed a timely request for reconsideration on May 27, 2010 with the
Hearing Examiner asking that the Examiner reconsider his decision on several grounds. See
Letter from Claudia M. Newman to Fred Kaufman dated May 27, 2010, The Examiner
responded to that request on June 10, 2010 indicating that he would not alter the original decision
and that he was denying RNHG's request for reconsideration. See Letter from Fred Kaufman to
Claudia Newman dated July 10, 2010. This appeal followed.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The City Council _Has_ Authority_ to Reverse the Examiner's Decision When the
Decision is Based on a Substantive Error in Fact or Law
Any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision may submit a notice of
appeal to the City Council requesting review. RMC 4-8-110(F)(1).2 After examination of the
record, if the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may
remand the procceding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of
the Examiner accordingly. RMC 4-8-110(F)(7).
The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing
Examiner's report, the Notice of Appeal, and additional submissions by parties. RMC 4-8-
2 There is no legal requirement that an appellant attend or testify at the hearing before the Examiner.
BricUn & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY �rdi A'' ue. Su
1411p FnurLh.Asenuc. Suite 3303
GROWTH- 4 Seattle WA 98154
'1'cl. (20) 26"6141
Faa, 01(1) 264-9301)
I 110(F)(6). No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence
2 or testimony shall be accepted by the Council unless a showing is made by the party offering
3
evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing
4
before the Examiner. RMC 4-8-110(F)(5). If the Council determines that additional evidence is
5
6 required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of
7 additional evidence. Id.
g B. The Wal-Mart proposal is an Illegal Expansion of a Nan -Conforming Structure
9 The Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion should be reversed
10 because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal enlargement of an existing non -conforming structure
11
per RMC 4-10-050. A legally established building or structure may remain if it does not conform
12
with the provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, but only if certain conditions are met,
13
14 including the following:
15 3. Alterations: A legal nonconforming structure shall not be
altered beyond the limitations specified below:
16
a. Structures With Rebuild Approval Permits: Alteration
17 work exceeding an aggregate cost of one hundred percent (100%)
18 of the value of the building or structure shall be allowed if:
19 (1) the building or structure is made conforming by the
alterations; or
20
(2) the alterations were imposed as a condition of
21 granting a rebuild approval permit; or
22 (3) alterations are necessary to restore to a safe
23 condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by
a proper authority. Alterations shall not result in or increase any
24 non -conforming conditions unless they were specifically imposed
as a condition of granting a rebuild approval permit, pursuant to
25 RMC 4-9-120.
26
Bricklin & Ncwman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 11KIl FQu�m%-C WierS�ite3303
GROWTH- 5 Svxnle XVA 99154
Tel (306) 264-8600
Fac. (206) 264 9300
0 9
1 b. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The cost of the
alterations shall not exceed an aggregate cost of fifty percent (50%)
2 of the value of the building or structure, based upon its most recent
assessment or appraisal, unless the amount over fifty percent (50%)
is used to make the building or structure more conforming, or is
4 used to restore it to a safe condition any portion of a building or
structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. Alterations shall
5 not result in or increase any nonconforming condition.
6 4. Enlargement: The structure shall not be enlarged unless
7 the enlargement is conforming or it is consistent with the provisions
of a rebuild approval permit issued for it.
8
RMC 4-10-050(A). Thus, as the final provision above states, the Code forbids enlarging a non -
9
10 conforming structure unless the enlargement is conforming or unless it is consistent with the
1 I conditions of a rebuild approval permit.
12 The provision quoted above does not allow Wal-Mart to expand its facility as proposed.
13 The existing Wal-Mart is a non -conforming structure and Wal-Mart is not seeking, nor has it
14 received, a rebuild approval permit. The enlargement is non -conforming because it violates the
15
City's maximum frontage setback requirement of 15 feet and because it violates several design
16
17 requirements required in District D (as is explained in greater detail in Section B herein).
18 The provision above makes it clear that alterations are not allowed unless they make the
19 structure conforming. Therefore, even if Wal-Mart was pursuing alterations and not an
20 expansion of the structure, it would be forbidden from doing so if the alterations do not make the
21 structure conforming.
22
The City staff and the Examiner completely disregarded the limitations and prohibitions
23
against enlarging or altering nonconforming structures in RMC 4-10-050. The Examiner's
24
Decision states:
25
26 The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet
current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street,
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 1tomeyti atLu
14101 Puurth :1��enue, Suitc 33113
GROWTH- 6 Seattle %VA 98154
Tei. (206) ae4-9600
Fad (206) 264431rn
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
i 0
the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or
complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and
parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square
foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum
front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the tradeoff is
allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized
store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the
excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other
particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the
Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards
would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a
modest remodel.
Examiner's Decision at 16 (¶ 3). There is no acknowledgment of the existence of RMC 4-10-050
by the Examiner in his conclusion.
RNHG pointed out that the proposal constituted an illegal expansion of a non -conforming
I use in its request for reconsideration. In his response, the Examiner concluded that the expansion
was allowed by the design regulations. But the Examiner's reading of the design regulation that
he refers to is somewhat baffling because it clearly does not say what the Examiner claims that it
says. The section referred to by the Examiner says, in so many words, that alterations,
enlargements, and/or restorations of non -conforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-1.0-050 are
required to comply with the urban design regulations. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1). That means that an
enlargement of a non -conforming structure must comply with the design regulations. That's it.
The design regulations certainly do not say that enlargements of non -conforming structures that
remain non -conforming are allowed despite the plain language of RMC 4-10-050.
The Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion was in error and
should be reversed because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal enlargement of an existing non-
conforming structure per RMC 4-10-050.
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY
GROWTH- 7
Sricklin & Newman, LLP
Attomcvs at Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle)kA 98154
Tel. (21 6) 2k4-86(10
Fac (2116) 26493110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C. The Wal-Mart.. Expansion Project Violates Several Requirements of the Renton
Code
1. The Wal-Mart proposal violates the City's maximum frontage setback,
requirement
The Wal-Mart proposal should have been denied by the Hearing Examiner because it does
not comply with the 15 foot maximum frontage setback requirement in the Renton City Code.
The subject site is designated Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) on the City
of Renton zoning map.' The purpose of the CA zone is to evolve from "strip commercial" linear
business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning and pedestrian
orientation, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities and
boulevard treatment with greater densities. RMC 4-2-010(L). The CA zoning designation
requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. RMC 4-2-120A.
For the proposal, the front street was considered Hardy Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue
S. ISR 167. The proposed structure would be setback from the front property line approximately
555 feet at the closest point, from the Garden Center to Hardy Avenue SW. Therefore, the
proposed structure does not comply with the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet.
The maximum setback limit may be modified by the reviewing official through the site
development plan review process, but only if the applicant can demonstrate that the site
development plan:
(a) Orients development to the pedestrian through such
measures as providing pedestrian walkways beyond those required
by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), encouraging pedestrian
Because only a small portion of the site is Medium Industrial (IM), the staff decided to review the
project only under the Commercial Arterial (CA) requirements. RNHG does not necessarily agree with this
approach, but, for practical purposes, it did not ultimately affect the project.
Sricklin & Newman, LLP
rt`ar auOPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 1(7 I�ouYh Avenue,
Suirc 33(1.9
GROWTH- 8 Searrlc %('A 98134
Tel. (206) 2648601
1`a . (2116) 2649300
I amenities and supporting alternatives to single occupant vehicle
2 (SOV) transportation; and
3 (b) Creates a low scale streetscape through such measures as
fostering distinctive architecture and mitigating the visual
4 dominance of extensive and unbroken parking along the street
front; and
5
6 (c) Promotes safety and visibility through such measures as
discouraging the creation of hidden spaces, minimizing conflict
7 between pedestrian and traffic and ensuring adequate setbacks to
accommodate required parking and/or access that could not be
g provided otherwise.
9 RMC 4-2-120C(15). This provision was not addressed by the Department of Community and
10 Economic Development in its Report to the Examiner, nor was it addressed by the Hearing
11
Examiner in his decision approving the proposal. Both simply allowed a violation of the setback
12
requirement without any review of the criteria listed above.
13
14 The site development plan does not meet the criteria listed above. It is not surprising that
15 Wal-Mart did not ever purport to make any showing on this issue, considering that the proposal,
16 as it is, simply cannot meet those criteria. The proposal is a typical Wal-Mart with a "sea of
17 asphalt" (as the Hearing Examiner described it) between the store front and the street. The
18 proposal is for a big box superstore that is oriented to cars, not pedestrians. It does not encourage
1.9
pedestrian amenities, support alternatives to single occupancy vehicle transportation, or provide
20
21 pedestrian walkways beyond those required by the Renton Municipal Code. It does not create a
22 low scale streetscape and adopts no distinctive architecture or mitigation of the visual dominance
23 of extensive and unbroken parking along the street front. The proposal does not promote safety
24 by minimizing conflicts between pedestrians and traffic — pedestrians must utilize make -shift
25 walkways that have been created in the parking lot to get to the store. It is obvious that the
26
development is promoting driving cars over walking to the store. The enormous parking lot,
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 1001 14rurte aah"mev"` �t Law
enue, Suite 3313
GROWTH- 9 scattle %K A 98154
TO. (2116) 264-8010
Pa . (206) 264931N1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0
which fills the setback between the street front and the store, is precisely the opposite of those
criteria listed above.
The Examiner did not review these criteria or review the record to determine whether
these criteria had been met. He instead determined that it was simply impractical for Wal-Mart to
meet the setback requirement because the existing structure was already so far away from the
street. He surmised that the trade-off of allowing a violation of the setback requirement was okay
because it was "modest" and a "reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store."
That the expansion is "well-designed" or "modest" is certainly up for debate, but
regardless, neither is an adequate justification for allowing a violation of the setback
requirement.4 The Decision should be reversed on the grounds that the proposal violates the 15
foot maximum setback requirement (and a non -conforming structure cannot be enlarged unless it
is made conforming).
2. The Wal-Mart proposal violates the City's Design Regulations
The Wal-Mart expansion is subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to
District "D" in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-050(A)(72). In those regulations,
the City of Renton has set forth a regulatory vision for what development should look like. It is
obvious when reviewing the requirements that the City has adopted these requirements with an
eye towards replacing the current look of commercial areas in District "D" with more vibrant,
walkable, pedestrian -friendly retail areas. That vision echoes the goal and intent of the CA
zoning. See RMC 4-2-020(L).
4 The question of whether the 15 foot maximum setback requirement makes sense in this situation
cannot be considered by the quasi-judicial body. In a quasi-judicial matter, the Hearing Examiner and the City
Council must apply the code as it is written. If Wal-Mart cannot expand its building because it is non -conforming
and because of the maximum setback requirement, then it must seek an amendment to the Code through the
legislative process before applying for an expansion.
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY r6 A c n`Law
10(}1 Fourth renuc, Suite 3303
GROWTH- 10 scatdc ,� A 98154
Ta (21)6) 26"600
F'Rx. (206) 264931w]
I. The design elements, which include an intent statement, standards, and guidelines, are
2 "required to be included in all development." RMC 4-3-100(A)(2) (emphasis supplied).
3
Alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of non -conforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-
4
10-050 are required to comply with the urban design regulations. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1). Big box
5
6 retail in the Commercial Arterial zone is required to comply with the design regulations
7 applicable for District D. RMC 4.3.100(B)(l)(b). There can be no doubt that this proposal must
g comply with the Urban Design Regulations.
9 The Urban Design Regulations were established in accordance with and to implement
10 policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton
1l
Comprehensive Plan. RMC 4-3-100(A)(1). The design regulations are divided into the
12
following seven areas: site design and building locations; parking and vehicular access;
13
14 pedestrian environment; recreation areas and common open space; building architectural design;
15 signage; and lighting.
16 The intent and goals of these requirements are expressed in each section. Some of the
17 relevant sections state:
18 (Site design and building locations) Intent: To ensure that
19 buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so
that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for high
20 density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from
public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity
21 throughout the district.
22
(Building location and orientation) Intent: To ensure visibility of
23 businesses, establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that
24 pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of
structures so that natural light and solar access are available to
25 other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and
26 definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate
transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses in
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY ]tt m v'c Lam'
Y 111(}1 1=autlh Ascnuc, $viIr 33U3
GROWTH- 11 Seatdc WA 98154
Td. (2,6)264-8601)
F: %. (2116) 264-9311D
1 the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the
street.
2
3 (Building entries) Intent: To make building entrances convenient
to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further
4 the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban
character of the district.
5
6 (Pedestrian environment) Intent: To enhance the urban character of
development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by
7 creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from the
streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian
g environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant
to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access
9 points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -
10 modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other
vehicular traffic.
I1
(Pedestrian amenities) Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify
12 the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas
13 that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and
14 ander typical seasonal weather conditions.
15 (Building architectural design) Intent: To encourage building
design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a
16 human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are
suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
17 retail architecture.
18 (Parking and vehicular access) Intent: To maintain active
19 pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots
primarily in back of buildings.
20
21 These are just a few samples of the intent statements throughout the design requirements.
22 They provide a general feeling of the vision that Renton has for this area. Each of these intent
23 statements are followed by minimum regulatory standards to carry out the vision. The goal is to
24 establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E).
25 Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be
26
encouraged through design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of
BricUn & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Aut,m 'C Lai
]f>I11 frouah Aarnuc, Juin 33113
GROWTH— 12 scatacWA 98154
Td. (2t16) 264 -WA,
F:,% (2x.16) 264-930n
0 0
1 the district is facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature
2 of the fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking lots is to be minimized and active
3
pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id.
4
The Wal -Marl expansion does not meet the City's vision nor does it meet the specific
5
6 regulatory requirements that were enacted to carry out this vision. What we have is a typical
7 Wal-Mart Big Box expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Superstore with franchise retail
8 architecture and a "sea of asphalt" located between the building and the front property line. Wal -
9 Mart has drawn lines for some "pedestrian" paths in the parking lot as an afterthought simply to
10 say they are there. But it is not a pedestrian -oriented design by any measure. The proposal is for
11
exactly the opposite of what the City requires in its regulations. Approval of the proposal
12
undermines the City's attempt to change the area.
13
14 The Examiner's Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the
15 proposal's compliance with Design District D' guidelines. Examiner Decision at 7-16 (T28).
16 The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the table below the proposal
17 meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of
18 approval are met." 7d. at 7. That is simply not the case. The table itself shows that the Wal-Mart
19
proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations.
20
21 Looking closely at the other requirements, it is evident that the proposal is out of compliance with
22 even more minimum standards than those 20 identified. Overall, the proposal must be denied
23 because of these numerous inconsistencies with the design requirements.
24 The Examiner seemed to believe that adherence to the design regulations is optional. The
25 provisions do "allow latitude" but not to the extent that a developer may be out of compliance.
26
The standards are identified as "prescriptive," which means that there is flexibility in the
Brieklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY ''tth Ave u , Su
lUf}1 Pourth:h•enuc,Swtc 3303
GROWTH- 13 S"ttl,.„,, 98154
Ttl. (2i}6) 264-8(inn
Fac. (206) 264-7300
�J
L
1 approach toward meeting the end requirement. But the requirement is a requirement — it must be
2 met as is stated time and time again in the urban design regulations. See RMC 4-3-100(A)(2),
RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a), RMC 4-3-100(13){1)(b)(ii). While creative design alternatives may be
4
allowed, the ultimate end must be met. Here, they simply were not met in many, many respects.
5
6 D. The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known
Trip Generation Characteristics of the Site
7
The estimate in the Hearing Examiner's decision for future trip generation of the Wal -
8
Mart expansion is incorrect because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into
9
10 consideration. In the Examiner's Decision, he found as follows:
11 The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per
day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts
12 of those additional trips.
13 Examiner Decision at 7 (¶ 23).
14 A Transportation Impact Study, prepared by the Transpo Group, dated October, 2009, was
15
submitted by Wal-Mart. The traffic study concluded that the proposal would generate 608
16
17 additional daily trips. The Hearing Examiner required a transportation mitigation fee based on
18 $75 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The fee, at $75 per trip for the 608
19 new daily trips anticipated, was estimated at $45,600.
20 RNHG has retained a traffic expert who will testify that when a proposal involves an
21 existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip
22 generation for expansion of that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE
23
predictions, he will demonstrate that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40%
24
25 higher) than the average discount store of that size. The traffic report for the project revealed that
26 this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic. That is not surprising considering
Brieklin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Att°°"" at'"a"'
'lnp] Founh A1•cnuc, Suitc 3303
GROWTH- 14 ScatEc WA 98154
lei (21 6) 2648600
Pax. (206) 264-93(KT
I that RNHB members have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing Wal-Mart in
2 Washington State. He will testify that the store would no doubt continue to generate higher than
3
average counts after the expansion.
4
It is clear from looking at the traffic study that Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, did
5
6 not take this into consideration. Transpo counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze
7 the counts using existing trip generation characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE
8 numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too
9 low for this higher than average traffic producing site.
10 A new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result being far
11
higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase accordingly.
12
RNHG raised this issue in its request for reconsideration. The Hearing Examiner stated
13
14 that the request was untimely:
15 The issue should have been raised during the course of the public
bearing or in comments submitted in advance of the hearing.
16 Subsequent to the close of the public hearing, the only new
information that may be submitted is information that was not
17 reasonably available at the public hearing. If the traffic counts
18 were indeed wrong, that was information that would have been
reasonably available at the time of the public hearing and should
19 have been introduced in a timely fashion.
20 Letter from Fred Kaufman to Claudia M. Newman dated Jun. 10, 2010 at 1.
21 The City of Renton Code allows "any interested person feeling that the decision of the
22 Examiner is based on errors of fact or errors in judgment may make a written application for
23
review within 14 days after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered." RMC 4-8-
24
25 100(G)(4). There is no requirement that the requesting party have attended the hearing in order
26 to request reconsideration or appeal a decision.
Briddin & Newman, LLP
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY u,6 Av' u , SU
4c F-nurdi ,Arcnuc, 4uiLc 33113
GROWTH— 15 slatdc �t'A 98154
Tcl (206) 264-861V1
i -as. (Z)6) 264-9300
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0 0
The Examiner has the jurisdiction to recognize an error in fact or error in judgment and
call for further action as the Examiner deems proper, including the receipt of additional evidence
on a subject that may have been improperly examined at the hearing. RNHG is pointing out an
erroneous conclusion and erroneous assumptions that were made at the previous hearing.
The Examiner points out that the only new information that may be submitted is
information that was not reasonably available at the public hearing. This is also the standard
applicable to the City Council's review as stated in RMC 4-8-110(F)(5). In this case, the parties
did not receive notice of the hearing and, therefore, did not attend. The parties did learn of the
proposal within the reconsideration time line and made a timely request for an opportunity to
present the evidence that it could not present at the hearing. It is within the City's jurisdiction
and ability to allow this evidence to be submitted.
The Hearing Examiner also concluded that the reconsideration request did not "show that
the projections were erroneous." The Examiner indicated that the "only thing submitted was
conjecture about the projections." As RNHG stated before, RNHG has retained a traffic expert
who will testify that the projections were erroneous and the group is simply requesting the
opportunity to present that testimony.
V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, RNHG requests that the Renton City Council reverse (and remand, if
necessary) the Examiner's Decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval for the
reasons stated above.
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY
GROWTH- 16
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
_ittomm at Lair
IV11 Fourth Avcnuc, Suitc 3303
Scattic %X'21 98154
Tel (206) 264861111
Fax. (21)6) 264-93M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C
Dated this�� da of f July, 2010.
RentonlOpening Brief
0
Respectfully submitted,
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
By:
Claudia M. Newman, WSBA No. 24928
Attorneys for Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth
OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY
GROWTH- 17
B6cldin & Newman, LLP
Attomm at l.aw
1601 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3343
Seattle WA 93154
Tel. (206) 26436011
Fax. (206) 264-9310
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF RENTON
IN RE: WALMART EXPANSION SITE
PLAN APPROVAL
FILE NO.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
IS
Cii_RK'S 0 Fie
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
} ss.
COUNTY OF KING }
I, PEGGY S. CAHILL, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington, declare as follows:
I am the legal assistant for Bricklin & Newman, LLP, attorneys for Renton Neighbors for
Healthy Growth herein. On the elate and in the manner indicated below, I caused Opening Brief
of Renton Neighbors for Health Growth to be served on:
City Clerk
City of Renton
7th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
[ ] By United States Mail
By Legal Messenger
[ By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail
[ ] By E -Mail
DECLARATION OF SERVICE - I
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attomevs at lain
I IK31 Fourth avenue, wire 3.303
Seattle WA 98854
Tel. (21 6) 264 800h
Fa%. (206) 26493011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•
Julia Medzigian
City Council Liaison
City of Renton Mayor's Office
7th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
[ ] By United States Mail
By Legal Messenger
[ ] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail
[ ] By E -Mail
Lawrence J. Warren—lwarren�rentonwa.gov
City of Renton
100 S. 2nd Street
P.O. Box 626
Renton, WA 98057-0626
IVY United States Mail
[ ] By Legal Messenger
[ ] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail
WY E -Mail
Jahn C. McCullough — jack(-q),mhseattle.com
Jessica M. Clawson — Jessica
mhseattle.eom
McCullough & Hill
701 5`h Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
kBy United States Mail
[ ] By Legal Messenger
[ ] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail
.[j -By E -Mail
DATED this t 64" day of TU� �4= 2010, at Seattle, Washington.
PEGGY S. AHILL
RentonlDecsv- County Council
DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2
Briddin & Newman, LLP
Attoatcvs at Law
1(101 1Tonrth Avenue, Suite 3303
Se -attic WA 98154
'rel. (206) 264-80v)
Pax. (JlO 264-93n(
July 12, 2010 Renton City Council Minutes 1191 Page 211
AUDIENCE COMMENT Greg James (Sammamish), speaking on behalf of RAMAC, Inc., owner of the
Citizen Comment: James - Riviera Apartments, expressed concerns regarding the proposed Shoreline
Proposed Shoreline Master Master Program (SMP) as it relates to future redevelopment of their apartment
Program complex. Mr. James stated that a river -walk style redevelopment of the site is
preferred and that the SMP's proposed height limitations and shoreline buffers
and setbacks are problematic for that type of redevelopment. He remarked
that he submitted changes to the SMP that he believes will resolve his
concerns. He expressed appreciation for the additional time that was granted
for reviewing the SMP.
Citizen Comment: Simpson - Anne Simpson (Renton), speaking on behalf of the Renton Shoreline Coalition,
Proposed Shoreline Master expressed appreciation for the additional time allotted to the SMP process. She
Program
stated that several members of their steering committee met with City staff
and conducted a productive meeting_ Ms_ Simpson remarked that the Renton
Shoreline Coalition would like to be able to strongly support Renton's SMP as it
goes forward to the Department of Ecology.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows
the listing.
Council Meeting Minutes of
Approval of Council meeting minutes of 6/28/2010. Council concur.
6/28/2010
City Clerk: 2010 Renton
City Clerk reported the official population of the City of Renton as of 4/1/2010
Population
to be 86,230 as calculated by the State of Washington Office of Financial
Management_ Information.
Appeal: Wal-Mart Expansion
City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiners decision regarding the Wal -
Site Plan, Renton Neighbors
Mart Expansion Site Plan by Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, represented
for Healthy Growth, SA -10-00.9
by Claudia Newman, attorney, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning
and Development Committee.
CAG: 10-067, Logan Av N
City Clerk reported bid opening on 6/15/2010 for CAG -10-067, Logan Ave. N_
Stage 2 Lake Washington
Stage 2 Lake Washington Trail South Lake Connector project; ten bids;
South Lake Connector, EnD
engineer's estimate $914,333.50; and submitted staff recommendation to
General Construction
award the contract to low bidder, EnD General Construction, Inc., in the
amount of $878,600.36. Refer to Finance Committee for discussion of funding.
CED: Future Library Site
Community and Economic Development Department requested authorization
Evaluation & Downtown
to appropriate $63,000 of the Library Fund for the evaluation of potential
Library Structure Analysis, library sites and completion of a structural engineering analysis of the existing
2010 Budget Amendment Downtown Library. Refer to Finance Committee.
Community Services: Parks, Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the
Recreation, Open Space & amount of $211,000 with SvR to complete the six-year update to the Parks,
Natural Resources Plan Recreation, Open Space, and Natural Resources Plan, and approval to transfer
Update, SvR $50,000 from the 1-405/Talbot Rd. Streetscape Improvements fund to cover the
budget gap_ Refer to Finance Committee.
Lease: Addendum, Lane Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an addendum to
Hangar Condominium airport lease LAG -99-003, with Lane Hangar Condominium Association, to
Association, LAG -99-003 increase the total ground lease rate per appraisal to $25,646.92 annually
through 7/31/2013. Council concur.
0
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Meeting:
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated May
Regular Council - 12 Jul 2010
13, 2010 re: the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan;
743 Rainier Ave S. Application (File No. LUA-10-
009 SA -H, ECF)
Exhibits:
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
City Cleric's appeal notification letter (6/29/2010), Response
Executive
to Request for Reconsideration (6/10/2010), Request for
Reconsideration & Appeal from Renton Neighbors for
Staff Contact:
Healthy Growth by their Attorney Claudia Newman, Bricklin
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502
& Newman, LLP (5/27/2010), Hearing Examiner's Decision
Recommended Action:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee.
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $ N/A
Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $ NIA
Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan; 743 Rainier Av S. was
filed on May 27, 2010, by Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, represented by their attorney Claudia
Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP., accompanied by the required $250.00 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council to take action on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan appeal.
Denis Law
Mayor City Of;
City Cleric Bonnie !.Walton
June 29, 20117
APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Neighbors for-Healthy Growth by their attorney Claudia
Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP..
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated May 13, 2010,:regarding Site Plan Review
& Environmental (SEPA) Review for the expansion of the existing Wal-Mart buildin&
known as Wa.i-Mart Expansion Site Plan; 743 Rainier AVS. (File No. LUA-10-009 SA, ECF)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City .Code of Ordinances, written. appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Approval has been flied with the City. Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the.
notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal_ Otherparties of record may .
submit letters limited tosupport .oftheir positions regardingthe.appeal within ten .(10) days of
the date of mailing of this notification_ The deadline for submission of additional letters is by
5:00.p-m., Monday, July 9, 2010_
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other.petinent.documents will be
reviewed by the CDuncil's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 .m.. on Thursday,
August 12, 20.10, in the Council Chambers, 7t�Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation. of the Committee will. be presented for
consideration by the full Councilat a subsequent Council meeting.
Copy.of the appeal and the -Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering
the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing-can be made that additional-evidence could not reasonably have-been available at th-e
prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence-or testimon on this matter
will be accepted by the City Council..
For additional information or assistance, 'please call me at 425-430-651.0.
Sincerely,
Bonnie 1. Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way* Renton, Washington 98057 (425} 430-6510 /'Fax (425)430-6516- rentonwa.gov
0
Reply to: Seattle Office
May 27, 2010
Renton City Clerk
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Contact:
Phone: 206-264-8600
Toll Free_ 877-264-7220
Fax: 206-264-9300
www.bnd-law.com
Cn Y OF RENTON
MAY 2'7 2010
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
via ,ABG lir / Cour1er
Re; Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear Clerk.
Please find enclosed an appeal of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wal-
Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval, File No. LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H that I am filing on behalf
of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision is
enclosed as is a check in the amount of $250 for the filing fee.
I am the representative for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth_ Pease direct all
communication through rae regarding this matter.
Please note that I have also separately filed a request for reconsideration directly to the Hearing
Examiner today, a copy of which is also enclosed herein. I believe that the deadline for
appealing the Hearing Examiner's decision is tolled by my request for reconsideration and,
therefore, this appeal is technically premature. However, the Renton City Code does not make
this explicit – there is no provision stating that the deadline for an appeal to the City Council is
tolled if a party files a request for reconsideration. Therefore, in the interest of extreme caution, I
am filing this appeal today. I will withdraw the appeal if the City indicates that it is premature.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
$ IN & WMAN, LLP
Claudia M. Newman
CMN:psc C.'. �--c c.1 11�x�.r rte. , C. 4., Vi .-1« —{ \ 9
Enclosure
Fria r',10 �
Brickling
Seattle Office:
Spokane Office:
1001 Fourth Avenue
35 Wesi Main
Suite 3303
Suite 300
Newman
Seattle, WA 98154
Spokane, WA 99201
UP
Reply to: Seattle Office
May 27, 2010
Renton City Clerk
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Contact:
Phone: 206-264-8600
Toll Free_ 877-264-7220
Fax: 206-264-9300
www.bnd-law.com
Cn Y OF RENTON
MAY 2'7 2010
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
via ,ABG lir / Cour1er
Re; Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear Clerk.
Please find enclosed an appeal of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wal-
Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval, File No. LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H that I am filing on behalf
of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision is
enclosed as is a check in the amount of $250 for the filing fee.
I am the representative for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth_ Pease direct all
communication through rae regarding this matter.
Please note that I have also separately filed a request for reconsideration directly to the Hearing
Examiner today, a copy of which is also enclosed herein. I believe that the deadline for
appealing the Hearing Examiner's decision is tolled by my request for reconsideration and,
therefore, this appeal is technically premature. However, the Renton City Code does not make
this explicit – there is no provision stating that the deadline for an appeal to the City Council is
tolled if a party files a request for reconsideration. Therefore, in the interest of extreme caution, I
am filing this appeal today. I will withdraw the appeal if the City indicates that it is premature.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
$ IN & WMAN, LLP
Claudia M. Newman
CMN:psc C.'. �--c c.1 11�x�.r rte. , C. 4., Vi .-1« —{ \ 9
Enclosure
Fria r',10 �
CITY OF RENTON
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL MAY 2 7 2010
OF FIFQRING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RLCOMMENDATION
RECEIVED
�s OFFICE
APPLICATION NAME Wa /rrr.� E �.� s a., St lk" Pf., �, 1#p �aro� NO. bz �'! S,¢ - f
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated M A r 13 —20/0
1. IDEM INCATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT':
Name: 9,e•+1y.t
Address: 11 e4n011z ahclpld;_ 6,0.,�{v,
112 S 5 9-4- PI Ac.L e4l'(V n r PhoneNumber: 1(1/90977— `0-0
Email: A 1A
REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY):
Name: el O 4,A lot /1%rylti,i
Address: 6✓ 4,k-v'n AIGz✓ .+
/or/ �l[[fi' A Svrk _Ie3a3 sz__�
Phone Numbe}a6y- Y,�ov wR -fslsY
Email: Qom,.✓ m .rte
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No. Error ._�nti►rrtr.� Gori I.f.�+h�.! -{�,. f7-re,¢r�-f�o�. Ptcas4-
R,4d .t 1! 544- .r hls� r, u �(_ lGtfY {r ff G.: 7 ,�, ' G.t, : v frj,_ ,-j,0..0 r�i i /•
�rjo.& °,j f Correction: a.*x 4-1— X 1'GA Y
%at rcd VA lsi, o
Conclusions:
No. 3 Error.
ori
SIVA,
Correction: 5 ife- a
f &L,4,^/ I /,
CIT �1SPrfiL SlJ�jie NO`at//]��
Other -
No. z8 Error: A .f w E ales r � ✓r'af�a,� dt�i' �-,
P1ZAre 5[c l�
:�rrcG�
Correction: P1e#*SC f "ts 6e 14e 4 r'r,
3. SY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the foHowin relief:
(Attach explanation, if desirrd)
►� Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: DGrs f 61,e P,p a5,40,
✓ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Pu6,cAse,
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:_Z
crcr�U r4+� na
VZ2,-�_
r ` dsvr 1'.c
def P 7., �p p
Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name Date
NOTE: Please rcfcr to Title iV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-&-110F, fo:r specific appeal procedures.
•
Reply to: Seattle Office
Fred J. Kaufman
Office of the Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Seattle Office:
1001 Fourth Avenue
Suite 3343
Seattle, WA 98154
Spokane Office:
35 West Main
Suite 300
Spokane,WA 99201
May 27, 2010
Contact:
Phone: 206-264-8600
Tall Free: 877-264-7220
Fax: 206-264-9300
www.bnd-law.com
Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -14
Dear Mr. Examiner:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this
request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued
on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision").. I represent Renton Neighbors for
Healthy Growth, which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this
proposal. Members of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this
matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time.
We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and
opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from
what 1 have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact. and law in the
recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you
reconsider the decision.
Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration
tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the
decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if
the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I
believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to
the City Council considering that you have trot yet had an opportunity to consider the issues
presented.
The Triv Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Tri
Generation Characteristics of the Site
We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect
because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your
Decision, you find as follows:
0
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 2
The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per
day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts
of those additional trips.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (T!23).
The .traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic.
That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing
Wal-Mart in Washington State.
It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact
analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of
that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes
evident that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average
discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average
counts after the expansion.
But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo
counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation
characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers.
As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic
producing site.
At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result
being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase
accordingly.
2. The project violates several reguirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal
expansion of a non -conforming use
With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite
that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion
of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval.
First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The
Decision states;
The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet
current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street,
the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion
or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street
and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000
square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the
maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the
LI
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page.3
tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and
revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor
of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other
particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the
Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards
would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a
modest remodel.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (1 3).
.As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes
that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well-
designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting
a developer an exception from the City Code requirements_ Even if it were, that is a policy call
that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial
body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the
code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied.
The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to
District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those
regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development
should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas
and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active,
lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-1000. Businesses are meant to
enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through
design, Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is
facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the
fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking Iots should be minimized and active
pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id.
The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory
requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding
into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the .
building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City
describes in its regulations -- approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change
the area.
The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's
compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval
Decision at 7-16 (T28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the
table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual
merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project,
time and time again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the
conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this
proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I
0
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 4
9
believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The
many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply
incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design
and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied
because of these numerous Liconsistcacies with the code.
The Decision states:
In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply
with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest
overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance... .
"Big Box" appears to invite `Big Parking" but as noted, additional
parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and
pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated
parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (T 16). Again, the conclusion being
made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that
enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the
quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel"
to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far
has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today.
Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart
Expansion Site Plan approval.
Very truly yours,
BRI IN & , LLP
(X
Claudia M. Newman
CMN:psc
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
OWNER Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, 9509
Bellevue, WA 98004
CONTACT/APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Walmart Expansion Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
743 Rainier Ave S
May 13, 2010
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site PIan Review for the construction of a additions to the
existing Waimart retail facility, which would include 16,000
square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of
4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate
16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales.
SUN04 RY OF ACTTON: Development Services Recommendation: Approve
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on April 20, 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report•; examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The fallowing minutes are a sumrnmy of the April 27, 2010 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9.00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affrmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map
application, reports, staff comments and other
documentation rtinent to this request.
•
May 13, 2010
Page 2
9
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7's Street and S Grady Way. The
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Waimart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,040 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site.
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6
measures. No appeals were filled.
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone_ The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback, however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building
pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done.
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fagade to break. up the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees_ Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street
Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan
Exhibit No. 4: Landscape Plan
Exhibit No. 5: Tree InventoEy Plan
Exhibit No. 6: East and West Elevations
Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations
Exhibit No. 8: Large Page Short Plat Plan (9 pages)
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7's Street and S Grady Way. The
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Waimart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,040 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site.
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6
measures. No appeals were filled.
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone_ The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback, however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building
pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done.
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fagade to break. up the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees_ Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street
0
May I3, 2014
Page 3
•
frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter
of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of
landscaping along SW 7`h Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is
being done in the parking area_ Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745
parking stalLs are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed
3 0,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements.
Fire and Traffic'mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC.
The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to
30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is
engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show
compliance with refuse and recycle standards.
Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support for this expansion.
Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project_
Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the
retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to
Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it
with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion
of the structure to SW 7'h Street_
The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the
existing lights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting plan needs to be provided showing both existing
and new Lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code.
A drainage report has been submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic
feet per second, therefore, the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment
has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area
The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and
if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban
Design District D.
The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of
refuse and recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum
standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation
is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of
landscaping. The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment Most
of the mininnum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an
irrigation plan must be provided.
There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent
for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale
element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done.
Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the fagade. A building materials and colors
board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality materials have been provided.
May 13, 2010
Page 4
Jack McCullough, McCullough & Hill, 7015 th Avenue, Ste_ 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant
looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal
presented today seems appropriate for the site_
There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than
building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project
must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of
view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary.in order to provide an adequate level of parking to
support this facility.
Jeff Chambers, PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss
some of the items previously brought forward.
In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many
of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway
would be widened out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from
approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site,
which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By
doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed
new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7`b, which was part of the
request from staff.
The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in
those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage.
The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages
parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around 10 -foot candles. The current parking lot
meets that uniformity. When 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of
the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a
bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would
increase, there would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this
site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was Iocated.
Usunobun Osage, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Da]_las, TX 75202 stated that
they would be able to make the suggested changes to the fagade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant
look.
The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The
design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation. The will continue to work
with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize
a workable solution that will make everyone happy. They want the City to be happy with this expansion.
Jack McCullough stated that they were going to lake an existing facility that is non -conforming in some respects
and make it better. Code does not require full conformance. They are consistently working with staff to make
the project better.
Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Short
Plat, All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction. It is still subject
to final review and permitting.
May 13, 2010
Page 5
Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they
were Subject to the foot candles being at a level that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly
was a matter of a nice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is
not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the
west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one_
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:56 am.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMNEENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit 41.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-Np.
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal.
6. The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subj ect site includes the existing Walmart
store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does
not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank
and Jimmy Macs.
7. The map element of the Comprehensive PIan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not
mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Medium Industrial). The vast
majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site
limited to IM uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines.
9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959
10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas
from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded.
11. The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or 13.6 acres.
12. The subject site is essentially level.
0
May 13, 2010
Page 6
13. The subject site contains 99 significant trees_ Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant
proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would
be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is
proposed (see below).
14. Access to the subject site will be unchanged.
15_ The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing
complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its
garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden
space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas
along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front
facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade new its northeast comer and two
smaller additions near the northwest comer of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127
additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls.
16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The
applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification_ There
will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the
general merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet
rooflines that curve in wing -like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving
central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas
would contain seating and. trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches.
17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center
will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the north will be 21 feet
4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme.
18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and
recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient; high volume compactor unit. These units have
been demonstrated to handle waste/recycling materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an
area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect
of the proposal.
19. The facade tvalment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along
eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest
around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the
appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the
applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior
treatments.
20_ The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the
street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares. Tine proposed expansion would not
comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff
found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not
trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards. The setbacks on the north, west and south are
respectively 150 feet, 65 feet and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the
proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32
feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet,
0
May 13, 2010
Page 7
21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of
the site in the area where Billy McHale's was Iocated. Code permits a range of parking and the
proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the
top range of 745 stalls. The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger
complement of parking.
22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 745 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes
65,690 square feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The
new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The
older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions
to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the
existing configuration would eliminate many of the Iarger, mature trees located in the parking areas.
Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These
landscape areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of
the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans.
23. The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation
fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips.
24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership.
Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue to be compatible with these various uses.
25- Stormwater will be handled by'providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff:
The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that
lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales.
26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the
vast majority of the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies.
Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use. designations, Commercial
Corridor, should be applied.
27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall.
Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has
proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better
overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment There is nothing
critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards. Those standards apply to all
development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development While the
expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles
should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights
throughout the complex.
28. The following Table contains staffs analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D
Guidelines:
a) Review of Compliance to District V Design Guidelines;
The site is located within Design District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design
Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal
0
May 13, 2010
Page S
meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval
are met.
A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the
City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from
public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts
that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and
intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle
circulation; and provide service to businesses.
Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to
N/A
public arterials.
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
N/A
promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway
system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design
treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City s Arterial Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets_ Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of
pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street
parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) internal or local roads (public or private).
2. Building Location and Orientation:
intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways;
organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures
so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual
character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings,
parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the
street.
Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
✓
Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but
instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard.
3. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries
further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing
a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public
sidewalk, and include human -scale elements.
Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network
N/A
of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view
to building entries.
Minimum Standard. Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open
N/A
space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection
at least 4-1/2 feet wide overthe entrance or other similar indicator of access.
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges,
adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development:
10
May 13, 2010
Page 9
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing
neighborhoods are preserved.
Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a
J compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of
building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be
considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses:
a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing official in
order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent
yards;
b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels;
c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or
d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development.
5. Service FJement Location and Design:
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by
locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in
high visibility areas.
Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts
on the pedestrian environment and adlacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated
and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see
illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e).
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed,
consistent with RMC 4,4-090, Refuse and Recycfables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening
and Storage Height/Location Limitations,
Not Compliant Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site
plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit
elevations for the re se and recyclable enclosure.
Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure reouirements, garbage, recycling
Not Compliant collection, and. utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides including_the roof and screened
around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Minimum standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -
V41" oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides
of such facility.
6. Gateways: Not Applicable
B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various
modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts
from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of
parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without
parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use
access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
1. Location of Parking:
intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of
buildings.
Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front
Not Compliant property fine or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot.
Staff Comment: The bulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and
O
May 13, 20 10
Page 10
RainierAve S/SR 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls
of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing
parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment
and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing a
substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual
impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site_
Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave S/SR 167 is proposed at a width of
approximately 55 feet and SIN /° St would have o landscape strip width of approximately 20
feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to
minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street.
2. Design of Surface Parking:
Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking
lots wherever possible.
Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties.
Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part .of the application materials,
therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent
Not Compliant
properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site
lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction or building permit approval.
Vol Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact
(see RMC4-4-0801+7, Landscape Requirements)
3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable
C PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating
pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the
pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on
sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public
transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic.
1. Pathways through Parking Lots:
intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots.
Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be
provided throughout parking areas.
f
Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided
perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart.
2. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the
pedestrian environment.
V,
Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system
that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk
system and adjacent properties_
✓
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above
the level of vehicular travel.
17
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be
differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials.
+t
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of
sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users_ Specifically:
N/A
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings too or more
feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width.
The walkway shall include an 9 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street
0
May 13, 2010
Page 11
3. Pedestrian Amenities.-
Intent:
menities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all
times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet
wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15
feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal -
and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably
maintained over an extended period of time.
+f Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shaft not impede or block pedestrian access
to public spaces or building entrances.
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and
vehicular circulation; and add to the aestheticenjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable
for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient
amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic
relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community.
trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d).
*01
(b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to
major building entries shall be allowed.
1
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to
accommodate the anticipated number of users.
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping
shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries.
J
Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface
{
unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development.
3. Pedestrian Amenities.-
Intent:
menities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all
times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet
wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15
feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal -
and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably
maintained over an extended period of time.
+f Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shaft not impede or block pedestrian access
to public spaces or building entrances.
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and
vehicular circulation; and add to the aestheticenjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable
for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient
amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic
relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community.
Minimum standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping).
✓
Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge
and building, as determined by the City of Renton.
N/A
Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed
with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City
of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a).
Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the desi=intent and
program of the building, the site, and use.
{
Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping,
through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or
concept of the development.
Minimum Standard: Surface 2arking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to
reduce views of parked cars from streets see RMC 4- 4-08OF7 Landscape Re uirements .
Such landscaping shall. be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk(see
Illustration subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b).
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street
f
frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least .35 fast
e . 10
May 13, 2010
Page 12
Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four
feet from the top of the root ball) respectively.
Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped
area. Shrubs shall be at [east 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between
three and four feet.
{
Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least
90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to
occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure
required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a
landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient
amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit.
✓
Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows:
(1) Required Amount:
Total Number of Spaces
Minimum Required Landscape Area*
15 to 50
15 square feet/pa rki ng space
51 to 99
25 square feet/parking space
100 or more
35 square feet/parking space
(2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape
areas.
Not Compliant
(3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that
reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be
eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball)
respectively.
Staff Comment. The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to
maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the
existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the
landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not
be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not
necessary. All new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard for tree spacing.
.r
(4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous.
,r
(5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of
planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete_
.l
(6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
.I
Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are
kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape
areas.
Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was notsubmitted as part of the application. therefore staff
recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit
approval.
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not Applicable
E BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and
uses appropriate building materials that are suft-able for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
0
May 13, 2010
Page 13_
retail architecture.
1. Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a humanscale;and ensure that all
sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Not compliant Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals
of no more than forty feet (40`).
Staff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the
southern and westem facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with
the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing
elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with
architectural elements,• however these facades would also not comply with the minimum
modulation requirement The applicant is proposing two 80 -foot vestibules along the
approximate 500 -foot eastern fogade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which
exceeds the 40 foot intervals. However, extending poropets,clerestories, canopies,
ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to
distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large
facade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many
architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest
along the eastern facade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW /h St
facing fagode has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fagade includes the use
of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center.
While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest; which break up the wall plane,
there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements
which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a
condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fapade,
that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval.
Z. Ground -Level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the
pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual
Interest.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is
considered a blank wall if:
(a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a
horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building
modulation or other architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater
and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing.
Staff Comment See comments above.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be
treated with one or more of the following:
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground
cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall;
(b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing
that meets the intent of this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
(e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
May 13, 2010
Page 14
Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall.
Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other
rComplillt
landscape feature along the facade's ground floor.
Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75
percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation
facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or
doors.
Staff Comment. The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the
eastern fagade. However, the applicant has provided extending parapets, clerestories,
canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree
in order to break up the monotony of the large fapade and provide human scale elements.
Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural
features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved
visual interest along the eastern fagode for the distant public. However, additional elements
could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of
the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant
provide revised elevations for the eastern fogade prior to building permit approval. The
revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are,
beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is
encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale
character, additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs,
evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade.
Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following:
(a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building.
However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum
amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent.
(b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than
permanent displays.
✓
(c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing.
✓
P (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited.
3. Building Roof Lines:
Intens: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and
contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
✓
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied
and interesting roof profiles:
(a) Extended parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
✓
Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the
equipment is not visible within 750 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
✓
Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the
building, consistent with RMC44-095E. Roof -Top Equipment.
Not Compliant
Minimum standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed
portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher
elevations.
staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color
of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof.
4. Building Materials:
May I3, 2010
Page 15
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials
that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the
neighborhood.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open
N/A
space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color
N/A
scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Staff Comment: it appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the same color
scheme and materials. however, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff
recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
Not Compliant
Minimum standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture,
N/A
pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Staff Comment: See Condition above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard. Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal
banding, patterns, ortextural changes.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
F. SIGNAGE:
intent: To provide a means of Identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage
signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to
the character of the Urban Center and the [enter lrrlap¢- anri rrnata minr nnri intnrnct
N/A
Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building_
N/A
Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location.
N/A
Minimum Standard:.Prohibited signs include:
i_ Pole signs;
ii. Roof signs;
iii. Sack -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet
signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are
signs with only the individual letters back -lit.
N/A
ordinated with
Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signagefincluding
the overall building design.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signe exception of
primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finishedluding supportstructure.
All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground/or shrubs) toprovide
seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. signage mayincorporate
stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved ctor.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
G. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas,
pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual
attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in
RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required
to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without costing excessive
glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and
downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement,
unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is
specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
May 13, 2010
Page 16
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be
allowed to directly project off-site.
Staff Comment: See comments above
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and
aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades,
and at pedestrian -oriented spaces.
Staff Comment: See comments above
CONCLUSIONS:
The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria
are generally represented in part by the following enumeration:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
e. Conservation of property values;
f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g_ Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
2. The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new
jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract
patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The new design features will also create a
more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City.
The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the
setback along its frontage streets the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or
complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed
approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard
setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion
and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback_ The
building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning
Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the
parking area for what is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would
remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determined
when actual permits for construction are submitted.
4. The two-story facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and the
May 13, 2010
Page 17
large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting Iight and air to enter the
site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code,
actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The
neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background
Walmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the
store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the
existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the parking islands will be enlarged and the
newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the
existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the
applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter
landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot.
The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in
the northern parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking
is a dominant feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant
does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape
requirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and
to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on
the site and to and from the site.
6. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values.
7. Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the
asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of cars circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting
down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated,
pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced.
While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be
available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use.
The store is served by existing urban infrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional
stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale.
10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are
applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in
this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff' has noted that in
most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has
justified why their project may not precisely meet some of the standards.
11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and
it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards. The enclosure will
have to meet the standards for containment and screening.
12. As noted above, the 16,000 square feet of remodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the
street to 15 feet. Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its
surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should
be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist The additional or better landscaping can help till in
the large space between the street and actual store.
13. The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards
May 13, 2010
Page 18
that do not meet code specifications. There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing
standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely
not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is
an overriding reason not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot
does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then
that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer
standards.
14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant paridmg lot is not an adequate
tradeoff, The applicant will be providing more parking lot landscaping than required and will be
supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will
have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping.
15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building.
Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or
other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with
the guidelines.
16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the
proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The
additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as
noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe
the neat remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
DECISION:
The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subj ect to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -
Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010.
2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on
Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the
approved Site flan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit as long as all
development standards of the CA zone can be met.
3 _ The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit
approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing
doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian
scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless
alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt
from provisions located in RMC 4-4075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the
newer standards including 25 -foot height limitations.
5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in
sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit.
0
May 13, 2010
Page 19
6. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to construction or building permit approval_
7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern fargade, which depict alternative methods to
mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
PIanning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval
subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager_ The revised elevations shall include
additional human scale elemenfis in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or
additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be
used to comply with the guidelines.
9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed
portions of the roof.
10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
11_ Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees zmigbt exist.
ORDERED THIS 13`s day of May 2010.
FRED J. KALTN16JN
1 1 X51 '
TRANSMITTED THIS 13"' day of May 2010 to the parties of record:
Rocale Timmons
Community & Economic Dev
City of Renton
Jack McCullough
McCullough & Hill
701 St Avenue, Ste. 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, Ste
Bellevue, WA 98004
Kayren Kittrick
Community & Economic Dev
City of Renton
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Jeremy Smith, Manager
Walmart #2516
509 743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Usunobun Osagie,
Larry D. Craighead Architects
211 N Record Street, Ste. 222
Dallas, TX 75202
Sharon Ajibade, Asst Manager
Walmart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Huy Tran, Asst, Manager Sophorn Chan, Assistant Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader
Walmart#2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 99057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
May 13, 2010
Page 20
Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr_ Foods
Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics
Brandi Hansen, Mgr- Automotive
Walmart 92516
Walmart #2516
Walmart#2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Sierra Schavrien, ICS Asssociate
Mark Goodman
Tauasi Paaga, HR
Walmart #2516
Walmart 92516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Nancy Chase, Dept Manager
William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld.
Francis Canapi
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Cheryl Harrelson
Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper
Levan, Dept. Mgr_
Walmart #2516
Walmart 92516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743' Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057 .
Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr.
Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr
Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Supv. 2' Shift
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart 92516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Jrish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv.
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS13th day of May 2010 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zinnmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Mav 27.2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, twice further action as he deems proper.
May 13, 2010
Page 21
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, Chapter S, Section 1 10, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a ELUng fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hail. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 27, 2010.
If the Exnwhaer's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the Iand use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow thew to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
Site Area:
594,553 SF (33.6 ac) Total Building Area CSF:
]50,244 SF
F3 - YS T23N R5E W V2
is r ►rvr , . I .F <
IfCA
rrur SlrE
I C
m CA
i4
r 1 F ,,, a
Im f ' c4
co� I rrvr I `y
rl!
-
;` CO I a f
H
N I
�\
C4
w
! C t
i
f !1
IL 3
. fH A-3
ZDNING M" BOOK H3 - 30 T23N EXHIBIT
PW TECHMCAL SEAVIM
PRINTED ON 11/13/09
rik.ersLpplr�oY� .
I�YSYfw1r.--.Wf.�Mf. fa U 2DO 40D
Fl 19 T23N R5E W 112
sis
it iu
t �- C,
Ear 3
i S
alp
=k ~ `�`_ l tom.., . :� _ • _ _ "'
w-tin=� ` ..� �' jfr '.Y _ - !_"•_'- b.>. �s _-.. _ �,i
�f. ' # : _�._ as _� =i �:1,� �_• ;�-:=
°:' ^ ' �'t_+�-"�• `:' �,. o -+r tom_ '� __ Lv ,_ ,`�; +:.."°' �� .��
iair-
-INA
wLU
67
{
gra - oe R ti rT"r..dq
r
29.
Y2
04'
+}I
CD
h
a
ri
RR Hi
as
.i
0
n
0
m
x
m
N
m
•
or
Denis Law Cl ty Of,
5 �� f'
Mayor
�-u r
City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton
June 29, 2010
APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth by their attorney Claudia
Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP.
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated May 13, 2010, regarding Site Plan Review
& Environmental (SEPA) Review for the expansion of the existing Wal-Mart building,
known as Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan, 743 Rainier Av S. (File No. LUA-10-009 SA, ECF)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Approval has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the
notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Nearing Examiner have expired, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may
submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of
the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by
5:00 p.m., Monday, July 9, 2010.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday,
August 12, 2010, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, Washington 98057: The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for
consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering
the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can be made.that additional'evidence could not reasonably have been available at the
prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter
will be accepted by the City Council
For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-6510.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 - rentonwa.gov
Y OPPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNS
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOAP4ENDATION
CITY QF RENTGN
i
MAY 2 7 2010 !.
REC IVED
�_�/� 4-[f f},��f-�1� 5 OFFICE
APPLICATION NAME /ih .� � Ex � n S f'O r+ 5'r ,(� P/,4 �, �rct ENO.
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
Land Use Dearing Examiner, dated M A r ! 3 —20/0
L IDEN'T'IFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT:
Name: IZ.G•e�VA M tfr h6nrs far es
Address: C/o e44CI'kh1ee1'2{ 6,0
y1s s1 P/A 444 -IV 11 &V?f-
Phone Number:
Email: v1 1A 40V
ir
REPRESENTATTVE (IF ANY):
Name: - if_ I A&I e4 et Njevrn t4 �
Address: 6rle-�/i'n :i� Aft
baa � Yom'' �Y`G . Svr �G 3303 .S�zf7�
Phone Num iXy- 81,00 ewf
Email: _r164�1mA'4 /Ot"I.
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Findini of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No. Error: nom "rent- Ple,,As.e–
A., d !� Sty ,rf GCe.R of tof•rn "r.�tn.r,
_,/�
GoaGG+1r.4� J
"AC X IS -;'r Eke' a.Yxfi--te /may
Conelusinns:
24•d or//
*Sid c,r
F..
1
No. .3 Error: pry✓ c.+d C r. dss r � Sl yjw r v1 'o
Other:
No. Z-8
eG
Correction: 5,02 A
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Derv/ &,e
✓ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: g k.'e,tAse,
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows-. r roc
Qthe _
G�� � �+Lr a �Gz•�c dt,.�
Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name
owvq)'�) -
�t 7,, c
Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures.
Bicr klin g
Newman
LLP
Reply to: Seattle Office
•
0
Seattle Office:
Spokane Office:
Contact:
1001 Fourth Avenue
35 West Main
Phone: 206-264-8600
Suite 3303
Suite 340
Toll Free: 877-264-72201
Seattle, WA 98154
Spokane, WA 99201
Fax: 206-264-9300
www.bnd-law.com
May 27, 2010
Fred ]_ Kaufman
Office of the Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Examiner:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this
request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued
on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). 1 represent Renton Neighbors for
Healthy Growth, which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this
proposal. Members of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this
matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time.
We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and
opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from
what I have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact and law in the
recent decision_ Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you
reconsider the decision_
Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration
tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the
decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if
the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I
believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to
the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues
presented.
1. The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Tri
Generation Characteristics of the Site
We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect
because A fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your
Decision, you find as follows:
T
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 2
The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per
day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts
of those additional trips.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (123).
The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic.
That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing
Wal-Mart in Washington State.
It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact
analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of
that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes
evident that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average
discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average
counts after the expansion.
But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo
counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation
characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers.
As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic
producing site.
At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result
being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase
accordingly.
2. The project violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal
expansion of a non -conforming use
With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite
that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion
of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval.
First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The
Decision states:
The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet
current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street,
the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion
or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street
and parking to the rear_ The proposed approximately 16,000
square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the
maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the
•
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 3
tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and
revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor
of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other
particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the
Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards
would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a
modest remodel.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (1 3).
As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes
that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well-
designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting
a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call
that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial
body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written_ If there is no exception in the
code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied.
The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to
District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those
regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development
should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas
and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active,
lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian, pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to
enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through
design_ Id_ Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is
facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the
fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active
pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id.
The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory
requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding
into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the .
building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City
describes in its regulations -- approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change
the area.
The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's
compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval
Decision at 7-16 (¶28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the
table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual
merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project,
time and tirne again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the
conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this
proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I
I
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 4
believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The
many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply
incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design
and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied
because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code.
The Decision states:
In conclusion., while it might be nice to start again and comply
with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest
overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance....
"Big Box" appears to invite `Big Parking" but as noted, additional
parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and
pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated
parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (� 16). Again, the conclusion being
rnade is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that
enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the
quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel"
to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far
has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today.
Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart
Expansion Site Plan approval.
CMN:psc
Very truly yours,
BPJC IN i , LLP
Claudia M. Newman
0,
Reply to: Seattle Office
Renton City Clerk
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton- WA 99057
4P
0
Seattle Office:
Spokane Office:
1001 Fourth Avenue
35 West Main
Suite 3303
Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98IS 4
Spokane, WA 99201
May 27, 2010
Contact:
Phone: 206-264-8600
Toll Free: 877-264-7220
Fax: 206-264-9300
www.bnd-law.com
CITY OF RENTON
MAY 2 7 2010
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
yiQ SBL L r I CDU r/er
Rc: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval, File No. LUAl0-009, ECF, SA -H
NOTICF OF APPEAL
Dear Clerk:
Please find enclosed an appeal of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wal-
Mart Expansion Site flan Approval. File No. LUA10-009. ECF, SA -H that I am filing on behalf
of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision is
enclosed as is a check in the amount of $250 for the filing lee.
I am the representative for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. Pease direct all
communication through me regarding this matter.
Please note that I have also separately filed a request for reconsideration directly to the Hearing
Examiner today, a copy of which is also enclosed herein. I believe that the deadline for
appealing the Hearing Examiner's decision is tolled by my request for reconsideration and,
therefore, this appeal is technically premature. However, the Renton City Code does not make
this explicit — there is no provision stating that the deadline for an appeal to the City Council is
tollcd if'a party files a reLlttc5t for reconsideration. Therefore. in the interest of'extreme caution, 1
am filing this appeal today. I will withdraw the appeal if the City indicates that it is premature.
1"hank you for your consideration ofthis matter.
Very trul_; yours,
BR,WjU,rN & . WMAN. LLP
Claudia M. Newman
4
CMN:psc ��,.L �..�� s.1 VIA. r ( r,l((,-� t;�5� i C �., rVI VIC e o-1
Enclosure � nv �.� l�tE. ��SL�+� \ �� 1: i )� V \F' ,j
t1-Q�1kLc�l�S t�� �LC,(`;,,.ir- 1 ir'v\ry -fin e\
i
OPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUN
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
APPLICATION NAME Mlg llhw `11 EAP-" 51'a,1 SI le P1,1.1 4AOcv,'04 .E NO. EC,—` S 4 -
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated 14 R r 1.4 , 20/0
1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT:
Name: At�-�V,r ff4jhbn,4 Ave •+��ir•,�
Address:.Gze, �l4611 'MMee 6,v
svv 64� 101,4 ReAfvA I wi
Phone Number: lies X77— -115,057
Email: A 1A _
REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY):
Name: el O 14 dr ot Me t,11" A �+
Address: _ 6✓1 A-11 "ei 1) Alit e44,*,.,
1011/ yll� 4V6. 579/f/e 3303
Phone Number:R,g4 -,jGoa
Email: !7d Wm A,4 01 -lot -j.
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No. ?3 Error: /`PI t, ,. a✓. P/c�t�- /
A -4 d R // 54$ {{C�t r7 "raj ek Grt,
".401W J O*t 1
Correction: SCG a.*4k C4— W l dW-r
Conclusions•
No. Error: _
PiG* s
Other:
�•d al!
Go4GGuA'
ivkd a,
erm
3.
Correction
J -0e dL-
4f6 G
'. Gc &-A c dl lL t6-
044ia/ 1
PE
rj
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: De -".l
✓ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: vu&-* ASC-
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Othe
aG �i Ha
18 -Pv I a
Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name
Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures.
7J
Y _Y
"Bricklin&
Newman
LLP
Reply to: Seattle Office
Fred J- Kaufman
Office of the Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Seattle Office:
1001 Fourth Avenue
Suite 3303
Seattle, WA 98154
•
Spokane Office:
35 West Main
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
May 27, 2010
Contact:
Phone: 206-264-8600
Toll Free: 877-264-7220
Fax: 246-264-9300
www.bnd-law.com
Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Examiner:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this
request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued
on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). I represent Renton Neighbors for
Healthy Growth. which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this
proposal. Members of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this
matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time.
We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and
opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from
what I have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact and law in the
recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you
reconsider the decision.
Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration
tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the
decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if
the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. 1
believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to
the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues
presented.
1. The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Tri
Generation Characteristics of the Site
We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal -Marl expansion is incorrect
because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your
Decision. you find as follows:
Fred J. Katifmaz)
May; 27, 2010
18 Pae 2
The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per
day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts
of those additional trips.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (¶23).
The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic.
That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing
Wal-Mart in Washington State.
It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact
analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of
that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes
evident that this Wal-Martgenerates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average
discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average
counts after the expansion.
But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo
counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation
characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers.
As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic
producing site.
At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result
being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase
accordingly.
2. The protect _ violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an. illegal
expansion of a non -conforming use
With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite
that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion
of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval.
First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The
Decision states:
The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet
current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street,
is the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion
or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street
and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000
square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the
maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the
Pied J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 3
tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and
revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor
of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other
particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the
Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards
would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a
modest remodel.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (11 3).
As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes
that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well-
designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting
a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call
that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial
body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the
code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied.
'The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to
District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those
regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development
should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas
and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active,
lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to
enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through
design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is
facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the
fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active
pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id_
The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory
requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding
into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the
building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City
describes in its regulations — approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change
the area.
The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's
compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval
Decision at 7-16 (�28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the
table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual
merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project,
time and time again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the
conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance_ The table itself shows that this
proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I
Fred ,l, Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 4
believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The
many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply
incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design
and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied
because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code.
The Decision states:
In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply
with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest
overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance....
"Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional
parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and
pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated
parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (¶ 16). Again, the conclusion being
made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that
enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the
quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel"
to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far
has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today.
In
Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart
Expansion Site Plan approval.
CMN:psc
•
Very truly yours,
BR1C 1N & MAN, LLP
Claudia M. Newman
•
•
•
ar •
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
OWNER: Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, #509
Bellevue, WA 98004
CONTACT/APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Walmart Expansion Site Pian Approval
File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
743 Rainier Ave S
May 13, 2010
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the
existing W ahnart retail facility, which would include 16,000
square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of
4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate
16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on April 20, 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking, the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the April 27, 2010 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. I: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map
application, reports, staff comments and other
documentation pertinent to this request.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.- LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 2 0
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7`h Street and S Grady Way. 'Be
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. 0
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6
measures_ No appeals were filed.
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own buiiding
pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done.
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fapade to break up the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a ] 0 -foot landscape strip along all street0
Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan
Exhibit No. 4:
Landscape Plan
Exhibit No. 5: Tree Inventory Plan
Exhibit No. 6:
East and West Elevations
Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations
Exhibit No. 8:
Large Pae Short Plat Plan (9 pages)
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7`h Street and S Grady Way. 'Be
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. 0
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6
measures_ No appeals were filed.
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own buiiding
pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done.
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fapade to break up the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a ] 0 -foot landscape strip along all street0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 3
frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter
of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of
landscaping along SW 7a' Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is
being done in the parking area. Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745
parking stalls are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed
30,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements.
Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC.
The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to
30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is
engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show
compliance with refuse and recycle standards.
Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support for this expansion_
Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project.
Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the
retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to
Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it
with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion
of the structure to SW 7"' Street.
The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the
existing lights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting plan needs to be provided showing both existing
and new lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code.
A drainage report has been submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic
feet per second; therefore, the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment
has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area.
The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and
if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban
Design District D.
The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of
refuse and recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum
standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation
is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of
landscaping. The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment. Most
of the minimum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an
irrigation plan must be provided.
There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent
for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale
element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done.
Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the facade. A building materials and colors
board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality materials have been provided.
0 40
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LU -A-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 4
Jack McCullough, McCullough & Hill, 701 5`b Avenue, Ste. 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant
looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal
presented today seems appropriate for the site.
There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than
building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project
must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of
view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to
support this facility.
Jeff Chambers, PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss
some of the items previously brought forward.
In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many
of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway
would be widened out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from
approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site,
which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By
doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed
new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 76', which was part of the
request from staff.
The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in
those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage. 0
The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages
parking areas around four foot candies and front of store areas around 10 -foot candles. The current parking lot
meets that uniformity. When 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of
the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a
bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would
increase, there would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this
site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located.
Usunobun Osnig, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Dallas, TX 75202 stated that
they would be able to make the suggested changes to the fagade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant
look.
The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The
design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation_ The will continue to work
with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize
a workable solution that will make everyone happy. They want the City to be happy with this expansion.
Jack_ McCuliou� stated that they were going to take an existing, facility that is non -conforming in some respects
and make it better. Code does not require full conformance. They are consistently working with staff to make
the project better.
Kavren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Short
Plat_ All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction. It is still subject
to final review and permitting. 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
40 May 13, 2010
Page 5
Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they
were subject to the foot candles being at a level that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly
was a matter of a nice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is
not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the
west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:56 am.
FLNDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now mattes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal.
The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart
store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does
not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank
and Jimmy Mac's.
The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not
mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Medium Industrial). The vast
majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site
limited to IM uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines.
The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959.
10_ The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas
from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded.
11. The subject site is approximately 594,5.53 square feet or 13.6 acres.
12. The subject site is essentially level.
0 ft
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-1 12, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 6
13. The subject site contains 99 si.gnificant trees. Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant
proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would
be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is
proposed (see below).
14. Access to the subject site will be unchanged.
15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing
complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its
garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden
space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas
along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front
facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade near its northeast corner and two
smaller additions near the northwest corner of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127
additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls.
16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The
applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification. There
will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the
general merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet
rooflines that curve in wing -like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving
central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas
would contain seating and trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches.
I7. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center
will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the north will be 21 feet
4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme.
18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and
recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit. These units have
been demonstrated to handle waste/recycling materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an
area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect
of the proposal.
19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along
eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest
around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the
appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the
applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior
treatments.
20. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the
street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares. The proposed expansion would not
comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff
s found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not
trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards. The setbacks on the north, west and south are
respectively 150 feet, 65 feet and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is pennitted whereas the
proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32
feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet.
U
0 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
Fie No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 7
21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of
the site in the area where Billy McHale's was located. Code permits a range of parking and the
proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the
top range of 745 stalls. The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger
complement of parking.
22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 745 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes
65,690 square feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The
new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The
older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions
to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the
existing configuration would eliminate many of the larger, mature trees located in the parking areas.
Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These
landscape areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of
the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans.
23. The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation
fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips.
24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership.
Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue to be compatible with these various uses.
25. Stormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff.
The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that
lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales.
26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the
vast majority of the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies.
Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designations, Commercial
Corridor, should be applied.
27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall.
Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has
proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better
overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment. There is nothing
critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards. Those standards apply to all
development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. While the
expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles
should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights
throughout the complex.
28. The following Table contains staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D
Guidelines:
a) Review of Compliance to District V Design Guidelines,
The site is located within Design District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design
Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal
0 M
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 8
meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval
are met.
A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the
City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from
public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts
that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and
intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle
circulation; and provide service to businesses.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to
public arterials.
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
N/A
promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway
system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design
treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of
pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street
parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) Internal or local roads (public or private).
Z. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways;
organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures
so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual
character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings,
parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the
street.
+�
Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but
instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard.
3. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries
further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing
✓
a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public
sidewalk, and include human -scale elements.
Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network
N/A
of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view
to building entries.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open
space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
✓
Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection
at creast 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access.
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges,
adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development:
0
•
•
•
r
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 9
r
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing
neighborhoods are preserved.
Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a
✓
compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of
building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be
considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses;
a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in
order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent
yards;
b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels;
c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or
d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development.
5. Service Element Location and Design:
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by
locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in
high visibility areas.
Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and desianed to minimize the impacts
on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated
and located where they are accessible toservice _vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see
illustration, RMC 4-3-300E7e).
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed,
consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening
Not Compliant
and Storage Height/Location Limitations.
Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site
plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit
elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure.
Minimum Standard:_ In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling
Not Compliant
collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened
around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.
Not Compliant
Staff Comment: See comments above_
Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -
oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides
of such facility.
6. Gateways: NotAAplicable
B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various
modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts
from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of
parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without
parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use
access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
1. Location of Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of
buildings,
Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front
Not Compliant
property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot.
Sta{fComment: The bulk of the parking is existing and Located in between the retail store and
Drofiak Apartments Site Flan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-1 l 2, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 10
•
•
Rainier Ave 5/5R 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls
of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing
parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment
and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing a
substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual
impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site.
Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave S/SR 157 is proposed at a width of
approximately 55 feet and Sire 7rh St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20
feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to
minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street.
2. Design of Surface Parking:
Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking
lots wherever possible.
Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties.
Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials,
Not Compliant
therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent
properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval the applicant submit a site
lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction or building permit approval.
Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact
see RMC 4-4-080F7 Landscape Re uirements .
3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable
C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating
pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the
pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on
sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public
transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic.
1. Pathways through Parking Lots:
Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian Connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots.
✓
Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be
provided throughout parking areas.
Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shalt be provided
perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart.
2. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the
pedestrian environment.
✓
Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system
that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk
system and adjacent properties.
✓
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above
the level of vehicular travel.
✓
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be
differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials.
✓
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of
sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
N/A
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more
feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width.
The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street
•
•
•
•
0 0
Drof-iak Apartments Site Flan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page I I
trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100,G4d),
✓
(b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to
major building entries shall be allowed_
✓
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shak be of sufficient width to
accommodate the anticipated number of users.
✓
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping
shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries.
✓
Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface
unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development.
3. Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all
times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
✓
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet
wide along at least 75 percent.of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15
feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
✓
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal -
and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably
maintained over an extended period of time.
✓
Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access
to public spaces or building entrances.
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and
vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable
for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient
amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic
relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community.
✓
Minimum Standard: Alf pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping}.
✓
Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge
and building, as determined by the City of Renton.
N/A
Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed
with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City
of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a).
✓
Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and
program of the building, the site, and use.
✓
Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate haw the proposed landscaping,
through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or
concept of the development.
✓
Minimum5tandard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to
reduce views of parked cars from streets {see RMC 4-4-OSQ7. Landscape Reguirementsl.
Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see
illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b1.
✓
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street
frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet.
0 4&
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -1-1
May 13, 2010
Pace 12
•
•
Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four
feet from the top of the root ball) respectively.
✓
Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped
area. Shrugs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between
three and four feet.
✓
Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least
90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to
occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure
required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a
landscape maintenance surety device for ❑ period of no less than three years in sufficient
amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit.
✓
Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows:
(1) Required Amount:
Total Number of Spaces
Minimum Required Landscape Area*
15 to 50
15 square feet/parking space
51 to 99
25 square feet/parking space
100 or more
35 square feet/parking space
✓
(2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape
areas.
Not Compliant
(3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that
reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be
eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball)
respectively.
Stoff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to
maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the
existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the
landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not
be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing o modification is not
necessary. Ail new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard for tree spacing.
✓
(4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous_
✓
(5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of
planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete.
✓
(6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
+�
Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are
kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape
areas,
Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff
recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit
approval.
n Areas and Common peen Space: Not Applicable
rBUILDINGARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
ncourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and
riate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
•
•
•
•
0 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Flan ApproVal
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Paye 13
retail architecture.
1. Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all
sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals
of no more than forty feet (40').
Staff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the
southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with
the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing
elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with
architectural elements, however these facades would also not comply with the minimum
modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two &0 foot vestibules along the
approximate 500 -foot eastern fapade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which
exceeds the 40 foot intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies,
ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to
distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large
fu�ode. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many
architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest
along the eastern fagade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7h St
facing fo�ode has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern facade includes the use
of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center.
While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest, which break up the wall plane,
there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements
which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a
condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade,
that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval.
2. Ground -Level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the
pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual
interest.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is
considered a blank wall if:
(a) it is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a
horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building
modulation or other architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater
and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Where blank wails are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be
treated with one or more of the following:
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground
cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall;
(b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c) Architectural detailing such as revea#s, contrasting materials, or other special detailing
that meets the intent of this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
(e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Pale 14
✓
Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall.
.I
Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other
landscape feature along the facade's ground floor.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75
percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation
facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or
doors.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the
eastern facade. However, the applicant has provided extending parapets, clerestories,
canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree
in order to break up the monotony of the large fagade and provide human scale elements.
Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural
features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved
visual interest along the eastern fa�ode for the distant public. However, additional elements
could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of
the pedestrian environment. Stoff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant
provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval. The
revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are,
beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is
encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale
character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs,
evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade.
Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following:
(a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building.
However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum
amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent,
(b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than
permanent displays.
+�
(c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing.
(d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited.
3. Building Roof Lines:
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with ars urban project and
contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
✓
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied
and interesting roof profiles:
(a) Extended parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
J
Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the
equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
./
Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend_with the architectural character of the
building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed
portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher
elevations.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color
of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof.
4. Building Materials:
•
C
•
•
0 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.; LU A-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 15
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time, encourage the use of materials
that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the
neighborhood.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open
space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color
scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Staff Comment. It appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the same color
scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff
recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture,
pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Staff Comment: See Condition above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal
banding, patterns, or textural changes.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
F. SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage
signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to
the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location_
N/A
Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include:
I. Pole signs;
ii. Roof signs;
iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet
signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are
signs with only the individual letters back -lit.
N/A
Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with
the overall building design.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of
primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support
structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to
provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may
incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the iarger development.
G. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas,
pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public piaces; and increase the visual
attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior li(ghting_reulations_located in
RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required
to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive
glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and
downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement,
unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is
specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112. SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 16
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be
allowed to directly project off-site.
Staff Comment: See comments above
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and
aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades,
and at pedestrian -oriented spaces.
Staff Comment: See comments above
CONCLUSIONS:
The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria
are generally represented in part by the following enumeration:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
e. Conservation of property values;
f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
2. The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new
jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract
patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The new design features will also create a
more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City.
3. The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements.for the
setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or
complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed
approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard
setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion
and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The
building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning
Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the
parking area for what is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would
remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determined
when actual permits for construction are submitted.
4. The two-story facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and the
•
•
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13-1, 2410
Page 17
large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the
site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code,
actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The
neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background
Walmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the
store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the
existing larger trees do Delp to soften the appearance and the parking islands will be enlarged and the
newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the
existing more utilitarian store_ Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the
applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter
landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot.
The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in
the northem parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking
is a dominant feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant
does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape
requirements and over 65,004 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and
to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on
the site and to and from the site.
The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values.
7. Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the
asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of cars circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting
down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated,
pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced.
While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be
available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use.
9. The store is served by existing urban infrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional
stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale.
10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are
applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in
this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in
most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has
justified why their project may not precisely meet some of the standards.
11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and
it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards_ The enclosure will
have to meet the standards for containment and screening.
12. As noted above, the 16,400 square feet of remodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the
street to 15 feet, Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its
surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should
be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in
the large space between the street and actual store,
11 The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards
Drof ak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -1-1
May 13, 2010
Page 18
that do not meet code specifications. There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing
standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely
not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is
an overriding reason not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot
does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then
that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer
standards.
14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate
tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking lot landscaping than required and will be
supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will
have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping.
15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building.
Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or
other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with
the guidelines.
•
16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the
proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The
additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as
noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution_ Maybe
the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
DECISION: 0
The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the following conditions:
I. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -
Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010.
2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on
Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the
approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all
development standards of the CA zone can be met.
3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit
approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing
doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian
scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless
alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt
from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the
newer standards including 25 -foot height limitations.
The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in
sufficient amount. as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit. 0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-1 12, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 19
6. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to construction or building permit approval.
7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade, which depict alternative methods to
mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval
subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include
additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or
additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be
used to comply with the guidelines.
9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed
portions of the roof.
10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
11. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees might exist.
ORDERED THIS l3'� day of May 2010.
FRED J. KAUFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 13'x' day of May 2010 to the parties of record:
Rocale Timmons
Community & Economic Dev
City of Renton
Jack McCullough
McCullough & Hill
701 Ss' Avenue, Ste. 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, Ste_ 509
Bellevue, WA 98004
Huy Tran, Asst. Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Kayren Kittrick
Community & Economic Dev
City of Renton
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Jeremy Smith, Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Sophorn Chan, Assistant
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Usunobun Osagie,
Larry D. Craighead Architects
211 N Record Street, Ste. 222
Dallas, TX 75202
Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-1 12, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 20
Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods
Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics
Brandi Hansen, Mgr. Automotive
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Sierra Schavrien, ICS Asssociate
Mark Goodman
Tauasi Paaga, HR
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Nancy Chase, Dept Manager
William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld.
Francis Canapi
Walmarc #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, ❑4'A 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Cheryl Harrelson
Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper
Levan, Dept. Mgr.
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr.
Abram Sparrow, Dept_ Mgr
Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Svpv, 2"d Shift
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv.
Walmart 92516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of May 2410 to the following!
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title 1V, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, reuuest for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Mav 27, 2010._Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision, This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may. after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
•
•
0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 21
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Mav 27 2010.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
•
0
CITY QE REPd7OI4
'PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNC4k MAY 9 7 2010
OF HEARING EXA '
MINER S DECISIONfREC©MMENDATION
REC iVED
Lt/ACQiCQ�liCs QFHCE
APPLICATION NAME 1,,Acr NO.�,4 -
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated Mit r f 3 , 20 /V
L IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT:
Name: )lZ.-1v.4 lid,"n 4�a�s dor �1
Address: C/o �4',Yolv GMc0!0-r- 6ro'..'4r„
Phone Number: 1'rYa0XW —
�ysB
Email: !il 1A
REPRESENTATIVE (1F ANY):
Name:
Address: ✓7 G l�'rt ?* IElC4✓,s s 1„
topr Y� mac. 5`ur�C 333 5��e_
Phone Num���`�- �GoD W��lSy
Email:P.�rr�.er+ d�rtof —fes F.J. �o�
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No. Error: n!-s•r�tc �.,r•GW���, fvr' �..�a✓. PrakrG
R'1d .411 SGS d Ii Lr G�iu lGX�7�Y {a t�fCrf17 �*_j f,C 6+M in ei b -y, n�car{ evi. 1
".4oG+Iio-+-1 Correction
%t r[d 0.4 14:. r
Conclusions:
No_ 3 Error:
PIG«sC
Other -
old h1 No. Z-8
aiwd a/f
;art y,o
*{I'd dr
Far
3
Sty arc.... X levfr
C"ll*�W_j
Correction: 5'42 A&Ae4-11d1 lely>'' ¢,
E
1VV1_.
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: DIy, &,e ��oS e
►� Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: �u't-,,CASC_ ,.«Pwc �4-c-
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: 2e,�,VZ4 H40
Othe d!
Appellant/Representative Signature
Type/Printed Name
7r
Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title N, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures.
wta
Brick1ju
Newman
LLP
:ter.
Reply to: Seattle Office
Fred J. Kaufman
Office of the Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Seattle Office:
Spokane Office:
1401 Fourth Avenue
35 West Main
Suite 3303
Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98154
Spokane, WA 99201
May 27, 2010
Contact:
Phone: 206-264-8600
Toll Free: 877-264-7220
Fax: 206-264-9300
www.hnd-law.com
Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Examiner:
Pursuant to Title JV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this
request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued
on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). I represent Renton Neighbors for
Healthy Growth, which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this
proposal. Members of Relator) Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this
matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time.
We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and
opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from
what I have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact. and law in the
recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you
reconsider the decision.
Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration
tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the
decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if
the City makes it clear that the appeal ran only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I
believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to
the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues
presented.
The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider ,the Known Trig
Generation Characteristics of the Site
We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect
because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your
Decision, you find as follows:
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 2
The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per
day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts
of those additional trips.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site PIan Approval Decision at 7 (T23).
The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic.
That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing
Wal-Mart in Washington State.
It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact
analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of
that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes
evident that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average
discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average
counts after the expansion.
But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo
counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation
characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers.
As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic
producing site.
At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result
being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase
accordingly.
2. The project violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal
expansion of a non -conforming use
With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite
that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion
of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval.
First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The
Decision states;
The existing use, a large "big box" establisluuent does not meet
current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street,
the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion
or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street
and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000
square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the
maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 3
tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and
revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor
of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other
particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the
Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards
would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a
modest remodel.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (¶ 3).
.As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes
that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well-
designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting
a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call
that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial
body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the
code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied.
The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to
District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100, See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those
regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development
should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas
and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active,
lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to
enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through
design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is
facilitated_ Id_ Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the
fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active
pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id.
The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory
requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding
into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the
building and the front property line_ The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City
describes in its regulations — approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change
the area.
The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's
compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval
Decision at 7-16 (fi28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the
table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual
merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project,
time and tune again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the
conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this
proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 4
believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The
many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply
incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design
and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied
because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code.
The Decision states:
In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply
with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest
overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance....
"Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional
parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and
pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated
parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (¶ 16). Again, the conclusion being
made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that
enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the
quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel"
to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far
has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today.
Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart
Expansion Site Plan approval.
Very truly yours,
BRIC IN & N, LLP
7?
Claudia M_ Newman
CMN:psc
Th2l3A11-09-008 4
f widn-dad pjogaj al ia�paa 4uaws�aey�
T O%S �.83Av il�ege6 ai zesion
I WO71Gane nnnnnn
i a uldln4{7eW e{ zdijdav
i ja}ad a solpek sa�lan#1 3
Jack McCullough
Jeff Chambers
Usunobun Osagie
McCullough & Hill
PACLAND
Larry D. Craighead Architects
701 5th Avenue, Ste. 7220
1505 Westland Ave N., Ste. 305
211 N Record Street, Ste. 222
Seattle, WA 98104
Seattle, WA 98109
Dallas, TX 75202
Peter Bonnell
Jeremy Smith, Manager
Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Mgr.
Bonnell Family LLC
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
10047 Main Street, Ste. 509
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Bellevue, WA 98004
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Huy Tran, Asst. Mgr
Sophorn Chan, Assistant
Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods
Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics
Brandi Hansen, Mgr. Automotive
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Sierra Schavrien, ICS Associate
Mark Goodman
Tauasi Paaga, HR
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Nancy Chase, Dept. Manager
William Carey, Jr., Safety Team
Francis Canapi
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Cheryl Harrelson
Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Levan Dept. Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
7Rainier Ave S
ton, WA 98057
Renton,
Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead 5upv.
Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr.
Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr.
2nd Shift
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv.
Claudia M. Newman
Walmart #2516
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
743 Rainier Ave S
1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3303
Renton, WA 98057
Seattle, WA 98154
T e096S Ob ; 009kS a�ejdwalAaanV ash
am
' slage� �f�a�se3
•
June 29, 2010
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
CERTIFICATE OF MAILI
L
BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes
and says that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over
the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 29th day of June, 2010, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed
in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all
parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth by their
attorney Claudia Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP, of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
regarding the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan. (File No. LUA-10-009, SA -H, ECF)
1 • �-d-�
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 29th day of June, 2010.
CynthiaR. Moya
Notary ublic in and for the State of
Washington, residing in Renton
My commission expires: 8/27/2010
�rrrr•rrf� r
' ARY
Z i
E OF
•
June 29, 2010
•
APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth by their attorney Claudia
Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP.
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated May 13, 2010, regarding Site Plan Review
& Environmental (SEPA) Review for the expansion of the existing Wal-Mart building,
known as Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan, 743 Rainier Av S. (File No. LUA-10-009 SA, ECF)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Approval has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the
notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City
Cleric shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may
submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of
the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by
5:00 p.m., Monday, July 9, 2010.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday,
August 12, 2010, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for
consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering
the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the
prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter
will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-5510.
Sincerely,
luPl •U a ldage �
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
Reply to: Seattle Office
0
0
Seattle Office:
Spokane Office:
1001 Fourth Avenue
35 West Main
Suite 3303
Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98154
Spokane, WA 99201
Fred J. Kaufman
Office of the Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 48457
Contact:
Phone: 206-264-6600
Toll Free: 877-254-7220
Fax: 206-264-9300
www.bnd-law.com
CITY OF RENTON
MAY 2 7 2010
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
May 27, 2010 tlt'Q,6e p/ %duYief'
Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-409, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Examiner:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this
request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued
on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). I represent Renton Neighbors for
Healthy Growth, which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this
proposal. Members of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this
matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time.
We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and
opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from
what I have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact. and law in the
recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you
reconsider the decision.
Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration
tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the
decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if
the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I
believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to
the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues
presented.
1, The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Tri
Generation Characteristics of the Site
We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect
because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your
Decision, you find as follows:
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 2
The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per
day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts
of those additional trips.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (�23).
The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic.
That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing
Wal-Mart in Washington State.
It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact
analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of
that store_ When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes
evident that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average
discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average
counts after the expansion_
But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo
counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation
characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers.
As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic
producing site_
At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result
being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase
accordingly.
2. The project violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal
expansion of a non -conforming use
With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite
that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion
of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval.
First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The
Decision states:
The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet
current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street,
the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion
or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street
and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000
square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the
maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the
Fred 7, Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 3
tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and
revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor
of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other
particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the
Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards
would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a
modest remodel.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site flan Approval Decision at 16 (¶ 3).
As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes
that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well-
designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting
a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call
that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial
body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the
code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied.
The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to
District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those
regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development
should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas
and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active,
lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to
enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through
design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is
facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the
fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active
pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id.
The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory
requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding
into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the
building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City
describes in its regulations — approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change
the area.
The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's
compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval
Decision at 7-16 (¶28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the
table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual
merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project,
time and time again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the
conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this
proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I
Fred T. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 4
believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The
many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply
incorrect_ For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design
and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied
because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code.
The Decision states:
In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply
with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest
overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance....
"Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional
parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and
pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated
parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (¶ 16). Again, the conclusion being
made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that
enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the
quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel"
to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far
has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today.
Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart
Expansion Site Plan approval.
Very truly yours,
BRI IN & MAN, LLP
Claudia M. Newman
CMN.pse
0
1,Y o CITY OF REN'1 ON Receipt 1592
G City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057 ;f y �'
NV
0/ 425-430-6510 Date
❑ Cash ❑ Copy Fee ❑ Notary Service
Check No. f -� ❑ Appeal Fee ❑
Description:,
Funds Received From:
Name
Address
City/Zip
Amount $
City Staff Signature
Clerk's Office Distribution List
+ ; Appeal, Walmart Expansion
Located at: 743 Rainier Av S
File No. LUA-10-009, ECF, SA -H
1
Renton Reporter ✓r
1
City Attorney
Larry Warren
1
City Council * '�
Julia Medzegian
1
CED
Alex Pietsch
1
Assistant Fire Marshal
David Pargas
7
Planning Commission V
Judith Subia
2 1
Parties of Record**
(see attached list)
1
PW/Administration
Gregg Zimmerman
7
PW/Development Services
Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning-,"
Stacy Tucker ✓
k v/
Janet Conklin✓
Larry Meckling,/
1
PW/Transportation Services
Connie Brundage
1
PW/Utilities & Tech Services
Lys Hornsby
1
LUA-10-009
*City Clerk's Letter & POR List only
Y CITY cor RENTO►N
♦ Hearing Examiner.
.Danis Law, Mayor, Fred J.. Kaufman ,
June 10, 2010'
Claudia A Newman
Bricklin & Newman; `LLP
1001 Fourth Ave.,` Ste. 3303
Seattle, WA 98154
Re: Walmart.Expansion, LUA-10-009, SA -H, ECF
Request for Reconsideration
Dear 1V1s.. Newman:.
This Office received:a request for reconsideration in this matter.
As the request notes,_the parties seeking reconsideration did .not attend the hearing. Since na.
members -of the group represented by the request are idlentified individually, it is hard to
determine if any of them submitted individual comments that are contained in the file but Since
these parties claim "they were not aware of the proposal at that time" (First full paragraph) it
seems that they were not involved in the comment or public hearing. At the public hearing there
was no testimony in opposition to the request and no one asked any neutral questions. It would
appear that:oppos tion to the application is newly minted in this request. The public hearing was
legally convened. There is no allegation that the legal notice was deficient:
The request raised two main issues regarding the approval The first issue' was that traffic counts
underestimated the _amount of traffic the`proposai would generate: This challenge or request for.
additional information, is untimely. The issues should have been raised during th.e course of the
public. hearing or in comments submitted in advance of the hearing.. Subsequent to the close..of
the public hearing, the only new. information., that may be subirbitted is information-that[was not
reasonably available at: the public hearing. 'If the traffic counts were indeed wrong, that was
information that. would have, been realsoiiably available at the time of the public hearing and
should have been introduced in`a timely fashion. In any event their ;request does, not show that.
the projections were erroneous, The only thing. submitted was conjecture about the projections.
These parties seeking reconsideration appeared after the public hearing with no showing that
they were deprived of an opportunity to timely comment or question the facts surrounding the
proposal.
The second issue raised in the.request for.reconsideration was whether the proposal meets the
criteria of Renton's Code. This portion of the request 'can be divided into two subcategories.
One: Whether the proposal meets the Design District D guidelines? Two: Whether the proposal
was an. im r0 er.ex expansion of a le. al non -conforming use. The answers to both questions are.
_ ...._.
p.. p. P 9 9 � - . .
governed by the language. of the Design District Overlay provisions:
The Design District Guidelines are "overlay" provisions and govern properties within their
boundaries regardless of -the underlying zoning and other zoning provisions: The overlay
guidelines.provide that projects. be reviewed with,an eye toward flexibility to forward the main .
'thrust of the, guldeline5 ; to.create better:designed and integrated projects. The guidelines allow
different or creative ways to achieve those principles. Section.4-37100(A)(2) states:
2. This Section lists elements that are required to be induded in all
development in the zones stated in subsection B1 of this Section. Each
y R E .N T O N>osssown Grady w$s
_ AHEAD OP THE, CURVE.
- -� Thf�nanPr rnniainc 5fl°iF rar:vrtarimMwrial 3f79�rnaf rrn,cimPr -
element includes an intent statement, standards, and guidelines. In order
to provide predictability; standards are provided, These standards specify
a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be, met. In order to
brovide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element. These
guidelines and the intent statement provide direction for those who seek to
meet the required element in a manner that is different from the standards. .
a. ` The determination as to the satisfaction of the requirement through
the use of the guidelines and the intent statement is to be made. by the
Administrator of the Department of. Community and, Economic
Development or designee.
b. When the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee has determined that the proposed
manner of meeting the design requirement through the guidelines and
intent is sufficient,the applicant shall no.t.be.required. to demonstrate
sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been
approved. .
Section 4-3-100(D) states:
D. ADMINISTRATION:
1. Review Process:. Applications sgbject to design regulations shall be
processed as a component of the "governing land use process_"
2. Authority: The.Re�iewing Official.shall have the -authority to approve,
approye.with conditions, or deny, proposals based upon the provisions of .
the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the Official.wili consider
proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider:the overall intent of
the minimum standards and guidelines, and enco"urade creative design
alternatives in order to achieve the Durposes of the desion regulations.
(emphasis supplied)
The provisions cited above allow sufficient latitude to permit:the proposed expansion as
conditioned in the decision:
Those guidelines also govern properties that might be considered legal non -conforming uses or
"big box retail."' Code permits them to be developed iri. accordance with the guidelines rather than
the more general regulations governing properties outside of a District governed by overlay
regulations: Sections 4-3-100(13)(1)(a)(v) and (b) contain the following language:
B APPLICABILITY AND CONFLICTS:
1... Applicability:
a.. The following development activities shall be required to comply with, =
theprovisions of this Section:
is All subdivisions including short plats;
_ ii. All new. structures;
iii. Conversion of vacant land (e.g•, to parking or storage lots);
iv. Conversion of a residential use to a" nonresidential use;
v. Alterations enlargements: and/or restorations of nonconforming
structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050.
b. . Any of the activities listed in subsection B1 a of this Section and
occurring in the following oveday'areas or zone shall_ be "required to
comply with the
provisions of this section. Big box retail as outlined below shall also be
required to comply with the provisions of this section.
So, not only is the redevelopment of non -conforming uses permitted under these regulations but
Brickift
Newman
LLP
Reply to: Seattle Office
Fred J. Kaufman
Office of the Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Seattle Office: Spokane Office:
Contact:
1001 Fourth Avenue 35 West Main
Phone: 206-264-8600
Suite 3303 Suite 300
Tod Free: 877-264-7220
Seattle, WA 98154 Spokane, WA 99201
l=ax, 206-264-9300
www.bnd-law.com
CITY OF RENTON
MAY 2 7 2010
RECEIVED
CITY OLE RK'S OFFICE
May 27, 2010
VJd 4,66 4 pl barter'
I.40 pm .
Re: Wal -,Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval-, File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Examiner:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this
request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued
on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). I represent Renton Neighbors for
Healthy Growth. which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this
proposal. Members of Rcnton 'Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this
matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time.
1X'e have only eery recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and
opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from
what I have reviewed so far. it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact and law in the
recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). I write to request that you
reconsider the decision.
Because the Renton Cade does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration
tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the
decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if
the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I
believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to
the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues
presented.
1. The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Trip
Generation Characteristics of the Site
We helieve that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect
because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your
Decision, you find as follows:
Trcd J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Paoc 2
The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per
day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts
of those additional trips.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (¶23).
The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic.
That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing
Wal-Mart in Washington State.
It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact
analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of
that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes
evident that this 1k al -Mart Ljcnerates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average
discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average
counts after the expansion.
But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo
counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation
characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers.
As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic
producing site.
At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result
being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase
accordingly.
2. The project violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal
Mansion of a non -conforming use
With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite
that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion
of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval.
l" first. the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The
Decision states:
The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet
current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street,
the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion
or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street
and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000
square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the
maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page
tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and
revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor
of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other
particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the
Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards
would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a
modest remodel.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (¶ 3).
As it is. this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes
that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well-
designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting
a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call
that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial
body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the
code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied.
The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to
District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those
regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development
should look like. Clearly, the City- is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas
and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active,
lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to
enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through
design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is
facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the
fronting sidewalk. Id, The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active
pedestrian environments n7aintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id.
The. Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory
requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding
into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the
building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City
describes in its regulations — approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change
the area.
The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's
compliance with Design District 'D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval
Decision at 7-16 (¶28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the
table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual
nicrit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project,
time and time again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the
conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this
proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. 1
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27. 2010
Pale 4
believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The
many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply
incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design
and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied
because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code.
The Decision states:
In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply
with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest
overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance....
"Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional
parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and
pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated
parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
Wal-Mart Fxpansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 ('- 16). Again, the conclusion being
made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that
enhances the existing building_ That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the
quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel"
to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far
has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today.
Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart
Expansion Site Plan approval.
Very truly yours,
BRIC IN & MAN, LLP
Claudia M. Newman
CMN:psc
Rocale Timmons
irfa i r,l=.,
From: Jessica M. Clawson [Jessica@mhseattle.com]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 2;08 PM
To: Rocale Timmonsjlr'
Cc: Jack McCullough
Subject: Response to Hearing Examiner RLCEIVEO
Attachments: Response to reconsideration 6-4-10.pdf :;r' UL.FRIC' OFFICE
Hi Rocale,
Can you please forward this to the Hearing Examiner's office? Thanks.
Jessie Clawson
Attorney at Law
McCULLOUGH HILL, P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 812-3388
(206) 812-3389 (fax)
Jessica&rnhseattle.com
CONFJDPN'1'I,1I.I"I'Y NOTICE: This email message maybe protected by the attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine or other confidentiality
protection. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then
delete it. Thank you.
0
MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS ';R`;K��`"
June 4, 2010
Fred J. Kaufman
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Response to Request for Reconsideration
File NO. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval
Dear Mr. Examiner.
We write on behalf of the applicant Jeff Chambers/PACLAND to respond to the Request
for Reconsideration (the "Request") of your decision approving the above -referenced project (the
"Project"), which was filed by "Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth," ("RNHG" on May 27,
2010. The request is without merit and should be denied.
We mote at the outset that RNHG failed to appear at the public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner in this case. As such, there is no evidence in this closed record supporting any standing
on the part of RNHG, and the Request fails to set forth any grounds under which RNHG is an
"interested person" in this case, as required under RMC 4-8-100. RNHG's absence in the
administrative review process for the Project constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative
remedies in this case. The Applicant reserves all rights and defenses in this proceeding relating to
RNHG's lack of participation in this case, failure to make a record, failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and lack of standing.
RMC 4-8-100(G)(4) outlines the criteria for the reconsideration of the Examiner's
decision. Reconsideration may be granted when the Examiner's decision is based on an erroneous
procedure, errors of lav or fact, an error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which
could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing. The request for reconsideration shall set
forth the specific errors relied upon by the appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as the Examiner deems proper. Here, RNHG has failed to shote that
the Examiner's decision meets any of the reconsideration criteria. Its request must be rejected.
Issue One
RNHG states that the Hearing Examiner should reconsider the site plan review decision
because the Traffic Impact Analysis ("TlA") studying traffic impacts of the project allegedly
underestimated trip generation counts. This allegation is untimely, without support in the record,
and should be rejected.
701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhscatdc.com
C.
City of Renton l leating Examiner
June 4, 2010
Page 2 of G
First, the traffic mitigation fee referenced by RNHG was imposed by the SEPA Mitigated
Deterimna6on of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") that was issued in connection with dus Project. See
Attachment 1. The MDNS was issued on March 25, 2010. The TLA submitted by the applicant
identified that the project would generate 608 additional daily trips. To mitigate for these
additional trips, the MDNS imposed a SEPA condition requiring the payment of $45,600 in traffic
unpact fees (608 trips x $75.00). See Attachment 1, Condition 5.
The deadline for MDNS appeals expired on April 16, 2010. RNHG did not submit
comments into the record regarding the MDNS, and failed to appeal the MDNS. RNHG cannot
now attempt to appeal the imposition of the traffic mitigation condition, as the appeal is untimely.
The request for reconsideration should be rejected for this reason alone.
Second, RNHG's allegations ate without support in the record. RNHG did not appear at
the site plan hearing before the Hearing Examiner and has not submitted into the record any
evidence supporting its allWdons of a discrepancy regarding trip generation. It is barred from -Aft.
submitting any evidence now because the record has been closed. In the absence of any evidence
in the record to support its allegations, RNHG's request for reconsideration must be rejected.
RMC 4-8-100(G)(4).
Issue Two
RNHG has alleged that the project does not comply with the City of Renton's Design
District `D' regulations. RNHG has mi'stepresented the Renton Municipal Code with regards to
the design guidelines, and this allegation is therefore without factual or legal support. It should be
rejected.
First, as with all of RNHG's allegations, RNHG failed to submit evidence showing that
the Project does not comply with the staffs interpretation of the design guidelines. In the absence
of any evidence in the record to support its allegations, the Examiner's initial decision, and the
staff's recorrunendation, are entitled to deference. See RMC 4-8-100(G)(2)(b). RNHG's request
for teconsideration must be rejected.
In addition, RNHG's allegation regarding the City's design guidelines misses the point.
The guidelines specifically state that they are intended to allow flexibility in project design. RMC
4-3-100(A)(2). ("These standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be
met In order to provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element.") The guidelines
.also grant the decisionmaker wide discretion in determining compliance with the guidelines, and
do not require strict compliance with the guidelines:
When the Adrninistrator... or designee has determined that the proposed
manner o fneeting the design requirement through the guidelines and
intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be required to demonstrate
sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been
approved.
•
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
June 4, 2010
Page 3of6
•
RMC 4-8-100(G)(2)(b). The guidelines grant further flexibility, to be exercised by the reviewing
official:
The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the design
regulations. In rendering a decision, the Official will consider proposals on
the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the
minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design
alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations.
RMC 4-3-100(D)(2). The Examiner correctly applied R1VIC 4-3-100(D)(2) by allowing some
flexibility, and by requiring the imposition of several design review conditions, in order to create a
better -designed project. See Conclusions 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12; Conditions 8, 9, 10, 11_ For example,
rather than requiring a corr=ercial store to provide windows along the ground floor, the -4W
Examiner imposed a condition maintaining the intent of the design guideline (to provide human
interest at ground level). See Condition 8. RNHG's allegations axe without merit and must be
rejected.
Issue Three
RNHG has alleged that the project is an illegal expansion of a nonconforming use_ This
allegation is without legal support. It must be rejected.
In addition to its traditional development regulations, the RMC includes, at Chapter 4-3, a
set of Urban Design Overlay regulations. They are designed to implement the Land Use and
Community Design Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. As true overlay regulations, they
are applied independent of the other development regulations of the Code, which they supersede.
These overlay regulations govern:
a_ Site design and building location;
b. Parking and vehicular access;
c. Pedestrian environment;
d. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space;
e. Building Architectural Design;
f_ Signage;
g. Lighting.
The application of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations is not intended under the Code
to be prescriptive, but rather to foster flexible solutions that lead to improved design. Specifically:
2. This Section lists elements that are required to be included in all development in the
zones stated in subsection B1 of this Section. Each element includes an intent statement,
standards, and guidelines. In order to provide predictability, standards are provided. These
•
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
June 4, 2010
Page 4 of G
•
standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met. In order to
provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element. These guidelines and the
:intent statement provide direction for those who seek to meet the required element in a
manner that is different from the standards.
a. The determination as to the satisfaction of the requirement through the use of
the guidelines and the intent statement is to be made by the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee.
b. When the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee has determined that the. proposed 'runner of meeting the design
requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be
`required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has
been approved.
Thus, the Administrator (and the Heating Examiner in review) must review the proposed project
design against the standardstguidelines and intent statement of each design element, in order to
determine compliance with the Urban Design Overlay Regulations.
Under RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b)(ii), the Urban Design Overlay Regulations apply specifically
to Big Box Retail uses. `Big Box Retail" uses are defined in the Code as follows:
An 'indoor retail or wholesale use in a building no less than seventy five
thousand (75,000) square feet of gross floor area and typically requires a high
parking -to -building area ration. Big -box retail buildings are typically single -
story structures, with a mass that stands more than thirty feet (30;) tall. Big -
box retail/wholesale sales can include, but are not limited to, membership
warehouse clubs that emphasize bulk sales, discount stores, and outlet stores.
This definition excludes vehicle sales, outdoor retail sales, and adult retail
uses.
RMC 4-11-180. The Project is a Big Box Retail use. As such, under the Urban Design Overlay
Regulations, the Project is subject to compliance with the design regulations applicable to District
`D'. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b)(ii). As noted above, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations govern,
among other things, site design and building location. That is to say, the required site design and
building location for the Project is determined by the Urban Design Overlay Regulations.
Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner Decision, the Project has been determined to comply with
these regulations, including with respect to the location of the building in the Project.
Under the Site Plan Approval pursuant to the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, the
approved location of the building in the Project is not consistent with the setback requirements of
the CA zone (see RMC 4-2-100), as noted in the Request. However, the Urban Design Overlay
Regulations are clear that "where there are conflicts between the design regulations of this Section
and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the regulations of this Section shall prevail."
RMC 4-3-100(B)(2). Thus, the approval of the location of the building in the Project, as
:7
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
June 4, 2010
Page 5 of G
determined pursuant to the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, controls over the inconsistent
provisions of the CA zone relating to setbacks.
Conclusion No. 3 of the Hearing Examiner decision acknowledges that the Project cannot
be expected (given the small size of the expansion) to bring the Project building to within 15 feet
of Rainier Avenue, Under Conclusion No. 4, the Hearing Examiner notes (in his discussion
relating to Urban Design compliance) that the significant building setback works to ease the
transition to neighboring uses. This Conclusion is consistent with the intent of the Building
Location and Orientation provisions of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which suggest that
buildings should "ensure an appropriate transition between building, parking areas, and other land
uses" and that "careful siting and design treatment should be used to achieve a compatible
transition where buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk
and scale." RMC 4-3-100(E)(1). With respect to the applicable standards of the Urban Design
Overlay Regulations regarding building siting, both the Administrator and the Hearing Examiner
properly concluded that thr Project will meet those standards.
Hence, while the Project is "nonconforming" as to the front yard setback requirements of
rhe CA zone, it is fully conforming to the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which control in
this case.
This conclusion is reinforced by the provisions of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations
which delegate to the Administrator (and the Examiner) the authority to approve expansions of
nonconforming structures through the design review process. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v) provides
that the Urban Design Overlay Regulations specifically apply to "alterations, enlargements, and/or
restorations of nonconforming structures, pursuant to RMC 4-10-050." Thus, even iE the Project
were viewed as "nonconforming" under RMC 4-10-050, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations
specifically authorize the Administrator (and Hearing Examiner) to use the design review process
to supersede the other provisions of the Code.
The Examiner's application of the design guidelines to the Project was proper. RNHG's
allegation must be rejected.
In summary, RNHG's allegations are untimely and without legal or factrial merit in the
following manner:
• RNHG's claim regarding the traffic mitigation condition is untimely as the
traffic mitigation fees were imposed as SEPA conditions in the MDNS.
The appeal period has long since passed for the MDNS.
• RNHG's claim regarding design guidelines is without legal or factual merit.
First, RNHG failed to submit any evidence in support of its claim. Second,
the design guidelines gives the Examiner the authority to encourage creative
design alternatives to meet the intent of the guidelines. RMC 4-3-
100(D) (2).
L�
City of Renton Hearing Exazxainer
June 4, 2010
Page 6 of 6
•
RNHG's claian regarding nonconforming structures is without legal merit.
The Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which prevail over other design
regulations of the Code, apply specifically to Big Box Retail uses like the
Project RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v). The Examiner properly applied the
design guidelines to this Big Box Retail use to create a project of better
design. Even if the Project were deemed a "nonconforming structure"
under RMC 4-10-050, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations would still
apply to the Project, and would control over inconsistent development
regulations of the Code_
For these .reasons, we respectfully ask that the Hearing Examiner reject the Request for
Reconsideration.
Sincerely,
qJoC. McCullough
cc: Rocale Timmons, City of Renton
Claudia Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP
,-ift .
Denis Law —City 0
Mayor
Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
March 25, 2010
Jeff Chambers, P.E.
Pacland
1505 Westlake Avenue N #305
Seattle, WA 98109
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION
Walmart Expansion, LUA10-409, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Chambers:
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a
threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures.
Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the
Mitigation Measures.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00
p -m. on April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee
with: Hearing Examiner, C€ty of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-
110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may he obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510,
A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers
on the seventh floor of City Hall,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on April
27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the
applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will
be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,
the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing.
Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way 0 Renton,Washington 9$057 0 rentonwa.gov
4�
•
Jeff chambers
March 25, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Ll
The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project
and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you
have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219,
For the Environmental Itgview Committee,
Roca[ Timmo
Ass ciate Planner
Enclosure
CC., Peter BDnnelI - Bomell-Family LLC / owner(s) -4ft
a
Bricklin
Newman
LLP
Reply- to: Seattle Office
Renton City Clerk
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton- WA 98057
0
Seattle Office:
Spokane Office:
1001 Fourth Avenue
35 West Maln
Suite 3303
Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98154
Spokane, WA 99201
May 27, 2010
Contact:
Phone: 206-264-8690
Toll Free: 877-264-7220
Fax: 206-264-9300
www.bnd-law.com
CITY OF RENTON
MAY 2 7 2010
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Via '4& Ler I Coufl°."
Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear Clerk:
Please find enclosed an appeal of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wal-
Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval, File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H that T am filing on behalf
of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision is
enclosed as is a check in the amount of 5250 for the filing fee.
I am the representative for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. Pease direct all
communication through me regarding this matter.
Please note that I have also separately filed a request for reconsideration directly to the Hearing
Examiner today, a copy of which is also enclosed herein. 1 believe that the deadline for
appealing the Hearing Examiner's decision is tolled by my request for reconsideration and,
therefore, this appeal is technically premature. However, the Renton City Code does not make
this explicit - there is no provision stating that the deadline for an appeal to the City Council is
tolled if a party files a request for reconsideration. Therefore. in the interest of extreme caution, I
am filing this appeal today. I will withdraw the appeal if the City indicates that it is premature.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
B LIN & :N, LLP
Claudia M. Newman
CMN:psct L=f f -i .r 9'
Enclosure
if1 fL
0
PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION
APPLICATIONNAME NO, _Z`. 5,4
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated MAV 13 , 20/0
1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT:
Name: f -t•; 11v.4 lie," hka,,. Avf Mt, -I&
Address. C/o �1,101,/ 6vheel�r G'�.17,1+
Phone Number: f'/90 X77-'�°
Email: A 1A
REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY):
Name: z',/ A t4 d r a
Address://'✓t t Al" A,
/oa / Yom' . 5'11fle 3 5�j�e-
Phone Num 1
Email:. n M A,4 6.1d - of k1, 10/3-,f
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS {Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No. Error:
q,F d q & 5Z -a •r f¢ �a c to r ( lc ffr :rf e.rn :tib r ,k : n v Sy- n,cv�c rfl.�rx�i
le -040&t.&'1-11
Correction:
&trcd o
Conclusions:
No..3 Error: A7
Other:
;" d,':41
sk-d w!!
Eaas,tld a�
3.
Correction:
SLG OL -da
e4v--
Gc� dsspr�i 51�7��c� y0��1�-
Gc o'ke w
4Polo ar *--Q 1
Fr]
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Y"" Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: DGny 6;4
✓ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: ",r.,,tASe- 1,,,,j4^a
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: acLark ,�r� na
Othe
C��� u �.r "o• Ii%Gr,.t7s�c Gt�1 � S %r �D! t7
Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name
Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures.
Bricklin
k.. Newman
LLP
Reply to: Seattle Office
Fred J_ Kaufman
Office of the Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Seattle Office:
Spokane Office;
1001 Fourth Avenue
35 West Main
Suite 3303
Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98154
Spokane, WA 99201
May 27, 2010
Contact;
Phone: 206-264-8600
Toll Free: 877-264-7220
Fax: 206-264-9300
www.bnd-law.com
Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Examiner:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this
request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal -Mast Expansion Site Plan issued
on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). I represent Renton Neighbors for
Healthy Growth, which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this
proposal. Members of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this
matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time.
We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore; we have had little time and
opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from
what I have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact and law in the
recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you
reconsider the decision.
Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration
tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the
decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if
the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I
believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to
the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues
presented.
The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Trip
Generation Characteristics of the Site
We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect
because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your
Decision, you find as follows:
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 2
The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per
day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts
of those additional trips.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (x(23).
The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic.
That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing
Wal-Mart in Washington State.
It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact
analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of
that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes
evident that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average
discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average
counts after the expansion.
But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo
counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation
characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers.
As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic
producing site.
At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result
being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase
accordingly.
2. The project violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal
expansion of a non -conforming use
With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite
that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion
of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval,
First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The
Decision states;
The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet
current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street,
the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion
or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street
and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000
square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the
maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the
L J
Fred J_ Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page a
tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and
revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor
of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other
particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the
Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards
would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a
modest remodel.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (� 3).
As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes
that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well-
designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting
a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call
that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial
body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the
code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied.
The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to
District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those
regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development
should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas
and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active,
lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to
enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through
design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is
facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the
fronting sidewalk_ Id. The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active
pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id.
The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory
requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding
into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the
building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City
describes in its regulations — approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change
the area.
The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's
compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval
Decision at 7-16 (128). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the
table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual
merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project,
time and time again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the
conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this
proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I
Fred J. Kaufman
May 27, 2010
Page 4
believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The
many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply
incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design
and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied
because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code.
The Decision states:
In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply
with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest
overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance....
"Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional
parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and
pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated
parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 1$ (� 16). Again, the conclusion being
made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that
enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the
quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel"
to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far
has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today.
Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart
Expansion Site Plan approval.
Very truly yours,
BRIO IN & N, LLP
Claudia M. Newman
CMN:psc
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
OWNER: Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, #509
Bellevue, WA 98004
CONTACT/APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste, 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Wahnart Expansion Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
743 Rainier Ave S
May 13, 2410
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the
existing Walmart retail facility, which would include 15,000
square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of
4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate
16,004 square foot area for outdoor retail sales.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on April 20, 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the April 17, 1010 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. I: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map
application, reports, staff comments and other
documentation pertinent to this re uest.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 2
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7�' Street and S Grady Way. The
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site.
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6
measures. No appeals were filed.
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3°/x, CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building
pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done_
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32'4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern facade to break up the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street
Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan
Exhibit No. 44: Landsca e Plan
Exhibit No. 5: `free Inventory Plan
Exhibit No. 6: East and West Elevations
Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations
Exhibit No. S: Large Pae Short Plat Plan (9 pages)
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7�' Street and S Grady Way. The
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site.
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6
measures. No appeals were filed.
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3°/x, CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building
pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done_
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32'4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern facade to break up the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No., LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 3
frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter
of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of
landscaping along SW 7a' Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is
being done in the parking area. Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745
parking stalls are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed
30,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements.
Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC.
The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to
30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is
engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show
compliance with refuse and recycle standards.
Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support forthis expansion.
Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project.
Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the
retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to
Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it
with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion
of the structure to SW 7a` Street.
The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the
existing lights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting pian needs to be provided showing both existing
and new lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code.
A drainage report has been submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic
feet per second; therefore, the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment
has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area.
The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and
if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban
Design District D.
The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of
refuse and recycle elevations_ Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum
standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation
is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of
landscaping_ The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment. Most
of the minimum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an
irrigation plan must be provided.
There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent
for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale
element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done.
Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the fayade. A building materials and colors
board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality materials have been provided.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LU -A-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 4
Jack McCullough, McCullough & Hill, 7015"' Avenue, Ste. 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant
looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal
presented today seems appropriate for the site.
There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than
building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project
must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of
view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to
support this facility.
Jeff Chambers, PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss
some of the items previously brought forward.
In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many
of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway
would be widened out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from
approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site,
which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By
doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed
new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7"', which was part of the
request from staff.
The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in
those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage.
The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages
parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around 10 -foot candles_ The current parking lot
meets that uniformity. When 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of
the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a
bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would
increase, there would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this
site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located_
Usunobun Osagie, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Dallas, TX 75202 stated that
they would be able to make the suggested changes to the fagade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant
look.
The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The
design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation. The will continue to work
with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation,, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize
a workable solution that will make everyone happy_ They want the City to be happy with this expansion.
Jack McCullough stated that they were going to take an existing facility that is non -conforming in some respects
and make it better. Code does not require full conformance- They are consistently working with staff to make
the project better.
Kayren Kittrick'Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Short
Plat. All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction. Itis still subject
to final review and permitting.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 5
Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they
were subject to the foot candles being at a level that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly
was a matter of a nice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is
not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the
west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10.56 am.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following;
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal.
6. The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart
store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does
not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank
and Jimmy Mac's.
The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not
mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Medium Industrial). The vast
majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site
limited to IM uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines.
9_ The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959.
10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas
from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded.
11. The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or 13.6 acres.
12. The subject site is essentially level.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
Pile No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 6
13. The subject site contains 99 significant trees. Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant
proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would
be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is
proposed (see below).
14. Access to the subject site mill be unchanged.
15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing
complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its
garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden
space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas
along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front
facade_ The other additions will be a large area along the north facade near its northeast corner and two
smaller additions near the northwest corner of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127
additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls_
16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The
applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification_ There
will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the
M
eneral merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet
rooflines that curve in wing like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving
central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas
would contain seating and trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches.
17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center
will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the north will be 21 feet
4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme.
18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and
recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit. These units have
been demonstrated to handle waste/recycling materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an
area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect
of the proposal.
19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along
eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest
around the prominent facades_ Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the
appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the
applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior
treatments.
20. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the
street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares. The proposed expansion would not
comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff
found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not
trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards_ The setbacks on the north, west and south are
respectively 150 feet, 65 feet and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the
proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32
feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 7
21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of
the site in the area where Billy McHale's was located. Code permits a range of parking and the
proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the
top range of 745 stalls. The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger
complement of parking.
22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 745 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes
65,690 square feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The
new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The
older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions
to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the
existing configuration would eliminate many of the larger, mature trees located in the parking areas.
Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These
landscape areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of
the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans.
23. The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation
fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips.
24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership_
Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue to be compatible with these various uses.
25. Stormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff.
The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that
lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales.
26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the
vast majority of the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies.
Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designations, Commercial
Corridor, should be applied.
27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall.
Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has
proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better
overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment. There is nothing
critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards. Those standards apply to all
development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. While the
expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles
should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights
throughout the complex.
28. The following Table contains staff s analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D
Guidelines:
a) Review of Compliance to District V Design Guidelines;
The site is located within Design'District 'D'. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design
Regulations. where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table beiow the proposal
•
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 8
•
meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval
are met.
A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the
City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from
public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts
that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high Urban densities and
intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle
circulation; and provide service to businesses.
Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to
N/A
public arterials.
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
N/A
promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway
system. The hierarchy shO consist of (from greatest in size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design
treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of
pedestrian activity. Su& streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, an -street
parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) Internal or local roads (public or private).
2. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent; To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways;
organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures
so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual
character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings,
parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near.the
street.
✓
Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
✓
Minimum Standard. The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but
instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard.
3. Building Entries:
Intent; To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that buiiding entries
further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing
✓
a street, shall be prominent, visibie from the street, connected by a walkway to the public
sidewalk, and include human -scale elements.
Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network
N/A
of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view
to building entries.
Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open
N/A
space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
✓
Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection
at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access.
✓
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges,
adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development:
•
DrOfiak Aparnnents Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 9
•
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-estabiished, existing
neighborhoods are preserved.
Minimum Standard, Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a
compatible transition: where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of
building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be
considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses:
a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in
order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent
yards;
b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels;
c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or
d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development.
5. Service Element Location and Design:
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by
locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in
high visibility areas.
Minimum Standard:. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts
on the pedestrian environment and adiacent„ uses. Service elements shall be concentrated
and located_where_they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see
illustration, RMC4-3-100E7e1.
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed,
consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening
Not Compliant
and Storage Height/Location Limitations.
Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site
plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit
elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure.
Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling
collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides,,_ including the roof and screened
Not Compliant
around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have seif-closing doors.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or
pedestrian -oriented
space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides
of such facility.
6. Gateways: Not Applicable
B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various
modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts
from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of
parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without
parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use
access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
1. Location of Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of
buildings.
Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front
Not Compliant
property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot.
Staff Comment: The bulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Paae 10
Rainier Ave 5/5R 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls
of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing
parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment
and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicont is proposing a
substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual
impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site.
Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave SJSR 167 is proposed at a width of
approximately 55 feet and SW f° St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20
feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to
minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the buiiding and the street.
2, Design of Surface Parking:
Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking
lots wherever possibie,
Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties_
Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials,
therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent
Not Compliant
properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site
lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction or building permit approval.
Minimum Standard: All surface parkinp, lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact
see RMC 4-4-080F7 Landscape Re uirements .
3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable
C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT,
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating
pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the
pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on
sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public
transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic.
1. Pathways through Parking Lots:
Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots,
Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be
provided throughout parking areas.
f
Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided
perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart.
2. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the
pedestrian environment.
✓
Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system
that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk
system and adjacent properties.
J
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above
the level of vehicular travel.
.,
Minimum Standard. Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be
differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials_
✓
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of
sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
N/A
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail bui}dings 100 or more
feet in width (measured aiong the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width.
The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street
r�
Drofiak Apartrnents Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 11
•
trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-11DO.G4d).
✓
(b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to
major building entries shall be allowed.
✓
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to
accommodate the anticipated number of users.
✓
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping
shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries.
✓
Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an ail -weather walking surface
unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development.
3. Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all
times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
✓
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet
wide along at least 75 percent.of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15
feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
✓
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal -
and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably
maintained over an extended period of time.
✓
Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access
to public spaces or building entrances.
D. LAN DSCAPING/RECREAT1DN AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and
vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable
for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient
amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic
relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community.
✓
Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping).
+�
Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge
and building, as determined by the City of Renton.
N/A
Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed
with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shal I be as determined by the City
of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a).
*�
Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and
program of the building, the site, and use.
✓
Minimum Standard: The landscape pian shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping,
through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or
concept of the development.
+�
Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shalt be screened by .landscaping in order to
reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-0801=7, Landscape Requirements).
Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see
illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b).
✓
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street
frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet.
•
Drof ak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -14
May 13, 2010
Page 12
•
Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four
feet from the top of the root ball) respectively.
J
Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped
area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between
three and four feet.
+�
Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least
90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to
occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure
required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a
landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient
amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit.
Minimum
Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as foliows:
(1)
Required Amount:
Total Number of Spaces
Minimum Required Landscape Area*
15 to 50
15 square feet/parking space
51 to 99
25 square feet/parking space
100 or more
35 square feet/parking space
✓
(2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape
areas.
Not Compliant
(3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that
reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be
eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball)
respectively.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to
maintain the mature tree cover_ As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the
existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the
landscape spacing, wvhich does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not
be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing ❑ modification is not
necessary. All new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard far tree spacing.
(4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous.
,l
(5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of
planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete.
✓
(5) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
.l
Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are
kept healthy and that dead or d in plant materials are replaced.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape
areas.
Staff Comment: An irrigation pian was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff
recommends, as a condition of aoproval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to ,construction or building permit
approval.
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not Applicable
E. BUILDiNG ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and
uses appropriate building materiais that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 13
retail architecture_
1. Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all
sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: All buiiding facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals
of no more than forty feet (40').
Staff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the
southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with
the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing
elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with
architectural elements however these facades would also not comply with the minimum
modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two 80 foot vestibules along the
approximate 500 -foot eastern fapade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which
exceeds the 40 foot intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies,
ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to
distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large
fapade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many
architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest
along the easternfapode thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7`h St
facing fapade has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fapode includes the use
of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center.
While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest which break up the wall plane,
there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements
which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a
condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fapade,
that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval.
2. Ground -Levet Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the
pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual
interest.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is
considered a blank wall if:
(a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a
horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building
modulation or other architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater
and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be
treated with one or more of the following:
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground
cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall;
(b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing
that meets the intent of this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
(e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
C
Droiiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 14
•
✓
Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall,
✓
Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other
landscape feature along the facade's ground floor.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75
percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation
facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or
doors.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the
eastern facade. However, the applicant has pravided extending parapets, clerestories,
canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree
in order to break up the monotony of the large fagade and provide human scale elements.
Based on the limitertions of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural
features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved
visual interest along the eastern fagade for the distant public. However, additional elements
could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of
the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant
provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval. The
revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are,
beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is
encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale
character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs,
evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade_
Minimum Standard; Other facade window requirements include the following:
(a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the bu[lding.
However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum
amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent.
✓
(b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than
permanent displays.
✓
(c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing.
✓
{d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited.
3. Building Roof Lines:
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and
contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
✓
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied
and interesting roof profiles:
(a) Extended parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
✓
Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the
equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
✓
Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the
building consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed
portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher
elevations.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color
of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof.
4, Building Materials:
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No_: LUA-09-1 12, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 15
Intent: To ensure high standards of quaPty and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials
that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the
neighborhood.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open
space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color
scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Staff Comment: It appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the some color
scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff
recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit opprovol.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture,
pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Staff Comment: See Condition above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal
banding, patterns, or textural changes.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
F. SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage
signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to
the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sired appropriately for their location.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include:
L Pole signs;
fl. Roof signs;
iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet
signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are
signs with only the individual letters back -lit.
N/A
Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with
the overall building design.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of
primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support
structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to
provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may
incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
G. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas,
pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual
attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Not Compliant
Minimum_ Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting located in
„regulations
RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required
to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive
glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and
downlighting shall be used in oil cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement,
uniess ofternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is
specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
•
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 16
•
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shalt be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be
allowed to directly project Off-site.
Staff Comment: See comments above
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and
aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades,
and at pedestrian -oriented spaces.
5toff Comment: See comments above
CONCLUSIONS:
The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria
are generally represented in part by the following enumeration:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
Conservation of property values;
Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new
jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract
patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block_ The new design features will also create a
more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City.
3. The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements -for the
setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or
complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed
approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard
setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion
and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The
building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning
Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the
parking area for what is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would
remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determined
when actual permits for construction are submitted.
The two-story facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and the
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 17
large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the
site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code,
actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The
neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background
Walmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the
store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the
existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the parking islands will be enlarged and the
newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the
existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the
applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter
landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot_
The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in
the northern parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking
is a dominant feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant
does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape
requirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and
to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on
the site and to and from the site.
6. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values.
7. Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the
asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of ears circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting
down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated,
pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced.
While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be
available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use.
The store is served by existing urban infrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional
stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale.
10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are
applicable to the subject site_ The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in
this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in
most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has
justified why their project may not precisely meet some of the standards_
11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and
it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards. The enclosure will
have to meet the standards for containment and screening.
12. As noted above, the 16.000 square feet of rernodeied area cannot be expected to close the distance to the
street to 15 feet_ Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its
surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should
be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in
the large space between the street and actual store.
13_ The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -11
May 13, 2010
Page 18
that do not meet code specifications. There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing
standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely
not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is
an overriding reason not to be conforming_ The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot
does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then
that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer
standards.
14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate
tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking lot landscaping than required and will be
supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited. perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will
have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping.
15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building.
Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or
other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with
the guidelines.
16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the
proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The
additional landscaping will also enhance the site. 'Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as
noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe
the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
DECISION:
The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the following conditions:
1, The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -
Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010.
2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on
Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval_ As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the
approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all
development standards of the CA zone can be met.
3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit
approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing
doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian
scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless
alterr►ative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt
from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the
newer standards including 25 -foot height limitations.
5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in
sufficient amount. as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
Permit.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 19
6. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to construction or building permit approval.
7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade, which depict alternative methods to
mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
& The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval
subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include
additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or
additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be
used to comply with the guidelines.
9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed
portions of the roof.
10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
11. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees might exist.
ORDERED THIS 13a' day of May 2010.
FRED J. KAUFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 13a` day of May 2010 to the parties of record:
Rocale Timmons Kayren Kittrick
Community & Economic Dev Community & Economic Dev
City of Renton City of Renton
Jack McCullough
McCullough & Hill
701 5h Avenue, Ste.
Seattle, WA 98104
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
7220 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, Ste_ 509
Bellevue, WA 98004
Jeremy Smith, Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Usunobun Osagie,
Larry D. Craighead Architects
211 N Record Street, Ste. 222
Dallas, TX 75202
Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Huy Tran, Asst, Manager Sophorn Chan, Assistant Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader
Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Wairnart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
0
0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 20
Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods
Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics
Brandi Hansen, Mgr
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Sierra Schavrien, ICS Asssociate
Mark Goodman
Tauasi Paaga, HR
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Waimart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Nancy Chase, Dept Manager
William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld_
Francis Canapi
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Cheryl Harrelson
Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper
Levan, Dept. Mgr.
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Trish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv.
W alm art #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Abram Sparrow, Dept, Mgr
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of May 2010 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Marry Wine, Assistant CAO
Automotive
Va3erie Reyes, ICS Lead Supe. 2r�Shift
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section I OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Mav 27.2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 21
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Cleric, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requireMents.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writine on or before 5:00 .m. May 27, 2010.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or.fmal processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
Denis Law
City of
qw
Mayor � 1
i
Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
May 25, 2010
Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION — WALMART EXPANSION
(FILE NO. LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF)
Dear Mr. Kaufman,
Staff respectfully request clarification of a condition included in the Examiner's Decision for the
Walmart Expansion, dated May 13, 2010. The Examiner's Decision includes a condition
(Condition #4) requiring the applicant to "to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide
for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building
permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe
pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been
approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-
075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards including
25 foot height limitations."
The condition is unclear as to whether or not the applicant is required to comply with the newer
lighting regulations, for both proposed and existing lighting standards. Based on findings
included in the report it appears the condition is meant to require only the newly constructed
light standards to meet the 25 -foot height requirement, and does not apply to the existing 40 -
foot lighting standards. Therefore, staff requests clarification of the condition as the whether or
not the newer lighting regulations, including the 25 -foot height limitation, are intended to p_qly
apply to the 3-5 additional standards and not the existing 40 -foot lighting standards.
Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 should you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Roc a Timmons,
Associate Planner
cc: Chip Vincent, Planning Director
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
Contact
Owner
Parties of Record
Yellow File
Renton City Hall 9 1055 South Grady way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
} ss.
County of King )
` U mKrLng first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states:
That on the 13'�' day of May 2010, affiant deposited via the United States Mail and
Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or
recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below
entitled application or petition.
Ln
�i
Signa
`J�
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this IS day of 52010.
•
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Residing at �Ttl&4 te�2 , therein.
Application, Petition or Case No.: Walmart Expansion
LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
ss.
County of King )
J !�yl PAPA 4eing first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states:
That on the l 3ch day of May 2010, affiant deposited via the United States Mail and
Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or
recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below
entitled application or petition.
�--Av
4
SignaturYi .
V
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
day of , 2010.
W
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Residing at , therein.
Application, Petition or Case No.: Walmart Expansion
LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record.
C7
HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT
C�
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
OWNER: Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, #509
Bellevue, WA 98004
CONTACT/APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste, 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Walmart Expansion Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H
743 Rainier Ave S
May 13, 2010
SUMMARY OF REQUEST. Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the
existing Walmart retail facility, which would include 16,000
square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of
4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate
16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on April 20, 2010.
PUBLIC BEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the April 27,20-10 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9:00 a. in. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map
application, reports, staff comments and other
documentation pertinent to this request.
Drofak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 2
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7h Street and S Grady Way. The
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site.
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6
measures. No appeals were filed.
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building
pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done.
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern faradc to break up the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street
Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan
Exhibit No. 4:
Landscape Plan
Exhibit No. 5: Tree Inventory Plan
Exhibit No. 6:
East and West Elevations
Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations
Exhibit No. 8:
Large Pae Short Plat Plan (9 pages)
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7h Street and S Grady Way. The
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site.
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6
measures. No appeals were filed.
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building
pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done.
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern faradc to break up the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 3
frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter
of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of
landscaping along SW 7`h Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is
being done in the parking area. Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745
parking stalls are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed
30,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements.
Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERG.
The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to
30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is
engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show
compliance with refuse and recycle standards.
Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support for this expansion.
Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project.
Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the
retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to
Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it
with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion
of the structure to SW 7t' Street.
The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the
existing lights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting plan needs to be provided showing both existing
and new lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code.
A drainage report has been submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic
feet per second; therefore, the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment
has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area.
The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and
if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban
Design District D.
The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of
refuse and recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum
standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation
is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of
landscaping. The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment. Most
of the minimum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an
irrigation plan must be provided.
There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent
for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale
element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done.
Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the facade. A building materials and colors
board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality materials have been provided.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 4
Jack McCullough, McCullough & Hill, 701 5`s Avenue, Ste. 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant
looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal
presented today seems appropriate for the site.
There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than
building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project
must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of
view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to
support this facility.
Jeff Chambers, PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss
some of the items previously brought forward.
In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many
of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway
would be widened out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from
approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site,
which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By
doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed
new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7t", which was part of the
request from staff.
The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in
those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage.
The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages
parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around 10 -foot candles. The current parking lot
meets that uniformity. When 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of
the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a
bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would
increase, there would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this
site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located.
Usunobun Osagie, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Dallas, TX 75202 stated that
they would be able to make the suggested changes to the fagade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant
look.
The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The
design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation. The will continue to work
with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize
a workable solution that will make everyone happy. They want the City to be happy with this expansion.
Jack McCullough stated that they were going to take an existing facility that is non -conforming in some respects
and make it better. Code does not require full conformance. They are consistently working with staff to make
the project better.
Kayren_Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Short
Plat. All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction. It is still subject
to final review and permitting.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 5
Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they
were subject to the foot candles being at a Ievel that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly
was a matter of a nice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is
not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the
west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:56 am.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit 91.
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal.
6. The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart
store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does
not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank
and Jimmy Mac's.
7. The map element of the Comprehensive PIan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not
mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and 1M- (Medium Industrial). The vast
majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site
limited to IM uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines.
9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959.
10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas
from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded.
11. The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or 13.6 acres.
12. The subject site is essentially level.
Drofiak Apartments Site .Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 6
13. The subject site contains 99 significant trees. Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant
proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would
be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is
proposed (see below).
14. Access to the subject site will be unchanged.
15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing
complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its
garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden
space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas
along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front
facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade near its northeast corner and two
smaller additions near the northwest corner of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127
additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls.
16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The
applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification. There
will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the
general merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet
rooflines that curve in wing -like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving
central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas
would contain seating and trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches.
17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center
will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the north will be 21 feet
4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme.
18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and
recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit. These units have
been demonstrated to handle waste/recycling materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an
area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect
of the proposal.
19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along
eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest
around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the
appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the
applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior
treatments.
20. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the
street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares. The proposed expansion would not
comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff
found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not
trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards. The setbacks on the north, west and south are
respectively 150 feet, 65 feet and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the
proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32
feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 7
21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of
the site in the area where Billy McHaIe's was located. Code permits a range of parking and the
proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the
top range of 745 stalls. The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger
complement of parking.
22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 745 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes
65,690 square feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The
new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The
older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions
to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the
existing configuration would eliminate many of the larger, mature trees located in the parking areas.
Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These
landscape areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of
the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans.
23. The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERG imposed a mitigation
fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips.
24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership.
Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue to be compatible with these various uses.
25. Stormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff.
The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that
lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales.
26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the
vast majority of the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies.
Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designations, Commercial
Corridor, should be applied.
27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall.
Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has
proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better
overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment. There is nothing
critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards. Those standards apply to all
development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. While the
expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles
should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights
throughout the complex.
28. The following Table contains staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D
Guidelines:
aj Review of Compliance to District `D' Design Guidelines;
The site is located within Design District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design
Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal
Ir
L J
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-1 i.2, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 8
meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval
are met.
A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the
City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from
public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts
that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and
intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle
circulation; and provide service to businesses.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to
public arterials.
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
N/A
promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway
system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design
treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian -oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of
pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street
parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) internal or local roads (public or private).
2. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways;
organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures
so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual
character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings,
parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the
street.
✓
Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
✓
Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but
instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard.
3. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries
further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing
✓
a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public
sidewalk, and include human -scale elements.
Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network
N/A
of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view
to building entries.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open
space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
✓
Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection
at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access.
✓
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges,
adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development:
0
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: L.UA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 9
Intent, To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing
neighborhoods are preserved.
Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a
compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of
building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be
considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses:
a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in
order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent
yards;
b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels;
c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or
d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development.
S. Service Element Location and Design:
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by
locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in
high visibility areas.
Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts
on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated
and located where they, are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see
illustration, RMC 4-3 100E7ei.
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed,
consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening
and Storage Height/Location Limitations.
Not Compliant
Staff Comment: Elevations far the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site
plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit
elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure.
Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling
collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened
Not Compliant
around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.
Not Compliant
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Minimum Standard: if the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -
oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides
of such facility_
b. Gateways: Not Applicable
B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various
modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts
from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of
parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without
parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use
access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
1. Location of Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of
buildings.
Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front
Not Compliant
property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot.
Staff Comment: The Caulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 10
Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls
of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing
parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment
and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing a
substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual
impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site.
Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave 5/5R 167 is proposed at a width of
approximately 55 feet and SW 7`6 St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20
feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to
minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street.
2. Design of Surface Parking:
Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking
lots wherever possible.
Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties.
Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials,
therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent
Not Compliant
properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site
lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction or building permit approval.
f
Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact
(see RMC 4-4-080177, Landscape Reguirementsj.
3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable
C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating
pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the
pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on
sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public
transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic.
1. Pathways through Parking Lots:
Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots.
Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be
provided throughout parking areas.
ve
Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided
perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart.
2. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the
pedestrian environment_
./
Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system
that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk
system and adjacent properties.
J
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above
the level of vehicular travel.
✓
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be
differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials.
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of
sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
N/A
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more
feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width.
The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 11
trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d).
✓
(b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to
major building entries shall be allowed.
✓
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to
accommodate the anticipated number of users.
✓
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping
shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries.
✓
Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface
unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development.
3. Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all
times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
✓
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet
wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15
feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
✓
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal -
and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably
maintained over an extended period of time.
✓
Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access
to public spaces or building entrances.
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable
for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient
amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic
relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community.
✓
Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070. Landscaping).
✓
Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge^
and building, as determined by the City of Renton.
N/A
Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed
with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City
of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a).
✓
Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and
program of the building, the site, and use.
✓
Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping,
through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or
concept of the development.
✓
Minimum Standard: Surface parkins areas shall be screened by landscaping In order to
reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements).
Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalkfsee
illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13b).
✓
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street
frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet.
Drofiak Apartments Site Flan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 12
Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four
feet from the top of the root ball) respectively.
Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped
area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tali at planting and have a mature height between
three and four feet.
Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least
90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to
occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure
required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation.
Staff Comment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a
landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient
amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit.
Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows;
(1) Required Amount:
Total Number of Spaces
Minimum Required Landscape Area*
15 to 50
15 square feet/parking space
51 to 99
25 square feet/parking space
100 or more
35 square feet/parking space
V-1
(2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape
areas.
Not Compliant
(3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that
reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be
eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball)
respectively.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to
maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the
existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the
landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not
be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not
necessary. All new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard for tree spacing.
V,
(4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous.
✓
(5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of
planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete.
✓
(6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
,i
Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are
kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape
areas.
Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff
recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit
approval.
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not Applicable
E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
Intent: To entourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and
uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 13
retail architecture.
1. Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all
sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals
of no more than forty feet (40').
Staff Comment, The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the
southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with
the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing
elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with
architectural elements, however these facades would also not comply with the minimum
modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two 80 foot vestibules along the
approximate 500 foot eastern fapade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which
exceeds the 40 foot intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies,
ornamental lighting and a large planter box with on iconic tree have been provided in order to
distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large
fagade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many
architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest
along the eastern fc�ode thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7`h St
facing facade has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fagode includes the use
of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center.
While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest which break up the wall plane,
there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements
which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a
condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade,
that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval.
2. Ground -Level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the
pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual
interest.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is
considered a blank wall if:
(a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wail over six feet in height, has a
horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building
modulation or other architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater
and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank wails shall be
treated with one or more of the following:
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground
cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall;
(b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing
that meets the intent of this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
(e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Staff Comment_ See comments above.
Drofialc Apartments Site Plan Approval
pile No.: LUA-04-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
.Page 14
✓
Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall.
✓
Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other
landscape feature along the facade's ground floor.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75
percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation
facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or
doors.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the
eastern fagade. However, the applicant has provided extending parapets, clerestories,
canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree
in order to break up the monotony of the large fagade and provide human scale elements.
Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural
features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved
visual interest along the eastern fagade for the distant public. However, additional elements
could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of
the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant
provide revised elevations for the eastern fa;ade prior to building permit approval. The
revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are,
beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is
encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale
character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs,
evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade.
Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following:
✓
(a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building.
However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum
amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent.
✓
(b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than
permanent displays.
✓
(c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing.
+%
(d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited.
3. Building Roof lines:
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and
contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
✓
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied
and interesting roof profiles:
(a) Extended parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
✓
Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the
equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
✓
Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the
building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed
portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher
elevations.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color
of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof.
4. Building Materials:
Drofiaic Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 15
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials
that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the
neighborhood.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open
space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color
scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Staff Comment: it appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the some calor
scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff
recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture,
pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Stott Comment: See Condition above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal
banding, patterns, or textural changes.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
F. SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage
signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to
the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location_
N/A
Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include:
i. Pole signs;
ii. Roof signs;
iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet
signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are
signs with only the individual letters back -lit.
N/A
Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with
the overall building design.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of
primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support
structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to
provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may
incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
G. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas,
pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual
attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lightinia regulations located in
RMC 4-4-075, Lightine,_Exterior On -Site.
Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required
to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive
glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and
downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement,
unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is
specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
.Page 16
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be
allowed to directly project off-site.
Staff Comment: See comments above
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and
aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades,
and at pedestrian -oriented spaces.
Staff Comment: See comments above
CONCLUSIONS:
The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria
are generally represented in part by the following enumeration:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
e. Conservation of property values;
Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new
jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract
patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The new design features will also create a
more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City.
The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the
setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or
complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed
approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard
setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion
and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The
building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning
Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the
parking area for what is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would
remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determined
when actual permits for construction are submitted.
4. The two-story facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and the
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 17
large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the
site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code,
actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The
neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background
Walmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the
store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the
existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the parking islands will be enlarged and the
newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the
existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the
applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter
landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot.
5. The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in
the northern parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking
is a dominant feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant
does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape
requirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and
to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on
the site and to and from the site.
The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values.
7. Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the
asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of cars circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting
down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated,
pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced.
While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be
available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use.
9. The store is served by existing urban infrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional
stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale.
10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are
applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in
this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in
most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has
justified why their project may not precisely meet some of the standards.
11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and
it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards. The enclosure will
have to meet the standards for containment and screening.
12. As noted above, the 16,000 square feet of remodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the
street to 15 feet. Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its
surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should
be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in
the large space between the street and actual store.
13. The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 18
that do not meet code specifications. There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing
standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely
not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is
an overriding reason not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot
does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then
that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer
standards.
14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate
tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking lot Iandscaping than required and will be
supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will
have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping.
15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building.
Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or
other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with
the guidelines.
16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the
proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The
additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as
noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe
the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
DECISION:
The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -
Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010.
2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on
Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the
approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all
development standards of the CA zone can be met.
3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit
approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing
doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian
scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless
alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt
from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the
newer standards including 25 -foot height limitations.
5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in
sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit.
Drofiak Apartments Site PIan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
.Page 19
6_ The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current PIanning Project Manager
prior to construction or building permit approval.
7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern facade, which depict alternative methods to
mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval
subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include
additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or
additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be
used to comply with the guidelines.
9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed
portions of the roof.
10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
11. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees might exist.
ORDERED THIS 13'h day of May 2010.
!� 4
r� � '
FRED J. KAUFAN
HEARING EXAMWER
TRANSMITTED THIS 13`h day of May 2010 to the parties of record:
Rocale Timmons
Community & Economic Dev
City of Renton
Jack McCulIough
McCullough & Hill
701 5h Avenue, Ste.
Seattle, WA 98104
Kayren Kittrick
Community &. Economic Dev
City of Renton
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
7220 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste
Seattle, WA 98109
Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, Ste. 509
Bellevue, WA 98004
Jeremy Smith, Manager
Walmart 92516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Usunobun Osagic,
Larry D. Craighead Architects
305 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222
Dallas, TX 75202
Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Manager
Walmart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Huy Tran, Asst. Manager Sophorn Chan, Assistant Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader
Walmart 42516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 99057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
r�
�J
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 20
Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Sierra Schavrien, TCS Asssociate
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Nancy Chase, Dept Manager
Walmart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Cheryl Harrelson
Walmart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr
Walmart 92516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv.
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics
Walmart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Mark Goodman
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld.
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
•
Brandi Hansen, Mgr
Walmart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Tauasi Paaga, HR
Walmart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Francis Canapi
Walmart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper Levan, Dept. Mgr.
Automotive
Walmart #2516
Walmart 42516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr
Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Supv. 2 Shift
Walmart 42516
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS13th day of May 2010 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietscb, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 P.m., May 27, 2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H
May 13, 2010
Page 21
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writine on or before 5:00 .m. May 27 2010.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be re uired prior to approval by City Council or final processiniz of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
Site Area: 594,553 Sp (13.6 ac) Total Building Area GSF: 150,244 SF
F3 - ] S T23N R5E W 112
�mg
r,mar'�
eo M cc
W _
e* i IM
r IM lm-- IAV! FM
N
� � f
co
Im 11 co
IL
co
IL
IH n -
ZONING MAP BOOK 113- 3a T23N
PW TECHNICAL SERVICES
PRINTED ON 11113/09
116f®�1Ya ��
Mwnlwf YfY�� W k YrEm
ere.aYtm�a�arkbYarx.rY.�.a 0 200 400
1H1 na kMa'4dL �y Mpyrvpruv* '
c ' © Feet
o
Cal
I R -x
I k I
,8
R-8
IBIT 2
3 3
19 T23N R5E W 112
S:i 19
sw,m at
i l
co
avarm
co
IL
IH n -
ZONING MAP BOOK 113- 3a T23N
PW TECHNICAL SERVICES
PRINTED ON 11113/09
116f®�1Ya ��
Mwnlwf YfY�� W k YrEm
ere.aYtm�a�arkbYarx.rY.�.a 0 200 400
1H1 na kMa'4dL �y Mpyrvpruv* '
c ' © Feet
o
Cal
I R -x
I k I
,8
R-8
IBIT 2
3 3
19 T23N R5E W 112
S:i 19
r�
1
mp1a 111 , P'� x
L_ f'
list 1,
i_' � .AILS LN m
r ; ' .-wry � , `•'yy��6. Sr-rT ..,FT` .4..�...., .r :` - - ��� -'-�-Tom'..}rR---:�.
Of•j r, I t�-. ,--�•ID `i1: 4 �_i r�Y _ R •_^�'�;=""w_-^ ti,CK. r�'..�:+"•�.r'.-�-I
cc
IL
co
x
W
d
„Ki - 91z Y y
mp1a 111 , P'� x
L_ f'
list 1,
i_' � .AILS LN m
r ; ' .-wry � , `•'yy��6. Sr-rT ..,FT` .4..�...., .r :` - - ��� -'-�-Tom'..}rR---:�.
Of•j r, I t�-. ,--�•ID `i1: 4 �_i r�Y _ R •_^�'�;=""w_-^ ti,CK. r�'..�:+"•�.r'.-�-I
cc
IL
co
x
W
d
„Ki - 91z Y y
ti
a
0 mu
y
21
CD
rlp0
0
�Pi
•
A
a
m
c
a
0
7
•
IR
91
{a,s
Q
Q
0
O
-h
m
O
O
O
�I
•
7
N
T
rrt
d
Q
H
S�
I
N
a
•
10 0
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 20th day of April, 2010, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing
Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to:
Name
Representing
Jeff Chambers
Contact
Peter Bonnell - Donnell Family, LLC
Owner/Applicant
Parties of Record
See Attached
(Signature of Sender): /
STATE OF WASHINGTON Lt'006-%" SSCOUNTY OF KINGI certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker �Py
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the u
mentioned in the instrument. q�N
Dated: A ;),T U
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Notary (Print): 14, '-� C ccl__L 111�
My appointment expires: k V,� + --2 ql 2 c
Walmart Expansion
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
4
Denis Law � Ci O�
Mayor 4— i
Department of Community and Economic Development
April 20, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Jeff Chambers
PACL.AN D
1505 Westlake Avenue N #305
Seattle, WA 98109
SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Chambers:
This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended April 16, 2010 for the
Environmental . Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non -Significance -
Mitigated for the above -referenced project.
No appeals were filed on the ERC determination therefore, this decision is final. The
applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report and
Decision dated March 22, 2010.
Also, a Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been scheduled for April 27, 2010, where
Site Plan Conditions may be issued. The applicant or representatives) of the applicant
are required to be present. Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing
Examiner for your review.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Roc a Timmons
Ass ciate Planner
Enclosure
cc: Peter Bonnell - Bonnell Family, LLC J Owner(s)
See attached / Party(ies) of Record
Renton City Hall 9 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
E
0
PARTIES OF RECORD
WALMART EXPANSION
LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF
Jeff Chambers
Peter Bonneil
Jeremy Smith
PACLAND
Bonnell Family, LLC
Manager
1505 Westlake Avenue N ste:
10047 Main Street ste: #509
Walmart #2516
#305
Bellevue, WA 98004
743 Rainier Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98109
tel: (425) 453-1414
Renton, WA 98057
tel: (206) 522-9510
towner / applicant)
tel: (425) 227-0407
eml: jchambers@pacland.com
eml: jksmith.s02516.us@wal-
(contact)
mart.com
(party of record)
Sharon Ajibade
Huy Tran
Luena Layapox
Assistant Manager
Assistant Manager
Walmart
Walmart
,
743 Rainier Avenue S
743 Rainier Avenue S
(party of record)
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
(party of record)
Anapogi Toleafoa
Sophorn Chan
Tilesa L. Swehla
I.C.S. Loader
Associate
Department Manager - Foods
Walmart
Walmart
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
743 Rainier Avenue S
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
(party of record)
(party of record)
Traffaney Black
Brandi Hansen
Sierra Schavrien
Department Manager -
Department Manager -
T.C.S. Associate
Electronics
Automotive
Walmart
Walmart
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
743 Rainier Avenue S
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
(party of record)
(party of record)
Mark Goodman
Tomasita Quinsay
Tauasi Paaga
Walmart
Human Resources
743 Rainier Avenue S
,
Walmart
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
743 Rainier Avenue S
tel: (425) 227-0407
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
(party of record)
Nancy Chase
William B. Carey, Jr.
Francis Canapi
Department Manager
Safety Team Lead
Walmart
Walmart
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
743 Rainier Avenue S
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
(party of record)
(party of record)
Updated: 04/15/10 (Page 1 of 2)
PARTIES OF RECORD
WALMART EXPANSION
LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF
Cheryl Harrelson
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Levan
Department Manager
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Valerie Reyes
I.C.S. Lead Supervisor - 2nd Shift
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Benjamin Gonsalves
I
(party of record)
Josle Merveus
Department Manager
Walmart
743 Rainier Aevnue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Josh Smith
Department Manager -
Pets/Chemicals/Paper Goods
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Abram Sparrow
Department Manager
Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Jose O. Martinez Irish Joy E. Layador
Entertainment Zone Merchandise
Supervisor
(party of record) Walmart
743 Rainier Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Updated: 04/15/10 (Page 2 of 2)
0
0
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D city of
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(e a
=� :
HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING
April 27, 2010
AGENDA
COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL
The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which
they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner.
PROJECT NAME: Walmart Expansion
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square
feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The
applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of
4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate 16,000 square foot area used for
outdoor retail sales. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern
and eastern facades. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot
with an expansion of the parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking
stalls; resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the
applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the
demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales.
HEX Agenda 4-27-10.doc
0 0
PUBLIC City of Renton
Department of Community & Economic Development
HEARING
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE EXAMINER
A.
SUMMARYAND PURPOSE OF REQUEST
PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
April 27, 2010
Project Name:
Walmart Expansion
Owner:
Peter Bonnell; Bonnell Family, LLC; 10047 Main Street #509; Bellevue, WA 98004
Contact/Applicont:
Jeff Chambers; PACLAND; 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste# 305; Seattle, WA 98109
File Number:
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Project Manager.
Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner
Project Summary:
The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review for the construction
of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square
feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden
Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail
space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an
approximate 16,000 square foot area used for outdoor retail sales. The expansion
of the facility is predominately located along the northern and eastern facades.
The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an
expansion of the parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional
parking stalls; resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot
expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian
pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known
as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within
the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and
is also located within Urban Design District V. Access to the site would continue
to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S/SR 167,
Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
Project Location:
743 Rainier Ave S
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
134,352 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 16,000 SF
Site Area:
594,553 SF (1.3.6 ac) Total Building Area GSF: 150,244 SF
Project Location Map
City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Pref ary Report to the Hearing Examiner
WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2410 Page 2 of 20
B. EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other
material pertinent to the review of the project.
Exhibit 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map
Exhibit 3: Site Plan
Exhibit 4: Landscape Plan
Exhibit 5: Tree Retention Plan
Exhibit 6: East and West Elevations
Exhibit 7: North and South Elevations
C. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner(s) of Record:
2. Zoning Designation:
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation:
4. Existing Site Use:
S. Neighborhood Characteristics:
Bonnell Family, LLC
10047 Main Street #509
Bellevue, WA 98004
Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM)
Commercial Corridor (CC) and Employment Area
Valley (EAV)
Big Box Retail
!North: Columbia Bank & Renton School District Admire Bldg (CA Zone)
East: Gas Station, Jimmy Mac's & Popeyes Restaurant (CA Zone)
South: Strip Retail & Renton Honda (CA Zone)
West: Lind Plaza & Renton Honda Service Center (!M Zone)
6. Access: Access would continue to be provided via existing curb
cuts along SW 7'b St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and
Rainier Ave S/SR 167.
7. Site Area:
D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
594,553 SF (13.6 ac)
Action
Land Use File No.
Ordinance No.
Date
Comprehensive Plan
N/A
4924
12/5/2001
Zoning
N/A
5099
11/1/2004
Annexation
N/A
1745
2/4/1987
Short Plat
LUA09-158
N/A
2/22/2010
Columbia Bank
LUA08-011
N/A
1/31/2008
Short Plat
LUA04-027
N/A
3/2/2004
Bonnell Retail Development
LUA95-175
N/A
10/23/1995
Lot Line Adjustment
LUA95-173
N/A
10/19/1995
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Comn
WALMART EXPANSION
Hearing Date April 27, 2010
E. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Utilities
& Economic Development
nary Report to the Hearing Examiner
I LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Page 3 of 20
a. Water: There is an existing 12 -inch looped water main serving the site.
b. Sewer: The site is currently served by a private on-site system connecting to a City of Renton line
directly connected to the King County Metro line.
c. Surface/Storm Water: The property has an existing 12 -inch drainage system on-site.
2. Streets: There are curb, gutters, and sidewalks for the entire perimeter of the project site.
3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE:
1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table
c. Section 4-2-120: Commercial Development Standards
d. Section 4-2-130: Industrial Development Standards
2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts
a. Section 4-3-100: Urban Design Regulations — Design District 'D'
3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards
a. Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations
b. Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Regulations
c. Section 4-4-050: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations
d. Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards
4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards
a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards
5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria
a. Section 4-9-200: Site Plan Review
6. Chapter 11 Definitions
G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. Land Use Element
2. Community Design Element
H. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS:
1. Proiect Description/ Background
The applicant, PACLAND, is requesting Site Plan Review before the Hearing Examiner for the future
construction of additions to the Renton Walmart retail store. The existing Walmart consists of an
approximately 134,000 square foot building and a 9,000 square foot Garden Center. The expansion
would increase the existing building by approximately 16,000 square feet and decrease the existing
Garden Center by approximately 4,000 square feet. The additions would be located on the northern
and eastern elevations and would create the opportunity to remodel the interior of the existing store.
The proposal also includes an expansion of the surface parking lot, along with additional landscaping
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Commty & Economic Development
WALMART EXPANSION A
Hearing Date April 27, 2010
iary Report to the Hearing Examiner
j LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Page 4 of 20
and improvements to drainage on-site. The subject property is located on the west side of Rainier Ave
S/SR 167 between SW 7t6 St and S Grady Way.
The project site area currently totals 9.9 acres, however a short plat was recently approved for the site
under a separate application (LUA09-158, SHPL-A). The purpose of the short plat was to segregate the
Walmart site and any associated parking improvements from the Columbia Bank and Jimmy Mac's
commercial pads. Once the proposed short plat is recorded, the subject site would total 13.6 acres in
area. As part of the short plat the applicant is proposing the demolition of the restaurant formerly
known as Billy McHales, currently sited on the north portion of the parcel abutting SW 7th St. The
property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) and located within the
Commercial Corridor (CC) and Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designations. In addition the
parcel is located within Urban Design District 'D' and is therefore subject to design review.
The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, a 4,701 square -foot Garden
Center and a 16,000 square feet for and outdoor retail sales area. The current state of the proposed
project area is predominately paved surfaces with areas of gravel just north of the existing store
location. The amount of impervious area would be increased by the proposal from 515,257 square feet
to 528,863 square feet. The proposal would result in a total of 745 surface parking stalls. New
landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and within the surface parking lots. The
proposed building would result in a lot coverage of 25.3 percent.
The tallest point of the proposed additions would be the top of the parapet on the proposed trespa
panel fagade treatment at the center of the eastern facade; which would have a height of 32 feet and 4
inches from existing grade. The proposed expansion, on the northern facade, would have a height of 21
feet and 4 inches at the tallest point as measured from existing grade matching the height of the
existing parapet. The design of the expansion area includes two new vestibules, on the eastern fagade,
with clear glazing. Also included in the design are clerestory windows, pedestrian canopies with
benches and trash cans beneath. The applicant is also proposing a raised planter box area with an
iconic tree planted with surrounding bench seating at the center of the elevation. Access would
continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, S
Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167.
There are 99 trees located onsite of which 15 are proposed for removal. There are no known critical
areas on or near the site.
The applicant has requested an administrative modification in order to downsize the refuse and recycle
area from the required 2,325 square feet to 30 cubic yards, as they are proposing the use of a self
contained compactor which has been engineered for high volume usage. Staff has reviewed the
request and issued an approval of the modification. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on April 2,
2010 and ended on April 16, 2010. No appeals of the decision were filed.
Staff has received several letters and a petition with numerous signatures demonstrating community
support of the proposed expansion.
2. Environmental Review
Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.210, 1971 as amended),
on March 22, 2010, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance -
Mitigated (DNS -M) for the Walmart Expansion. The DNS -M included 6 mitigation measures. A 14 -day
appeal period commenced on April 2, 2010 and ended on April 16, 2010. No appeals of the threshold
determination were filed.
3. Compliance with ERC Conditions
Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee
(ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated:
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Cam 1
WALMART EXPANSION
Hearing Date April 27, 2010
& Economic Development
Report to the Nearing Examiner
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Page 5 of 20
1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report
prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009.
2. The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated
February 5, 2010, during project construction.
3. If pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and
vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City
also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven.
4. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the
applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to
the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved
archaeologist. Work shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation.
S. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip
prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00.
6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at
$0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00.
4. Staff Review Comments
Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file,
and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report
and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report.
5. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria
The Site Development Plan Review Criteria set forth in Section 4-9-200 of the Renton Municipal Code
forms the basis of the Site Plan Review, as follows:
aj Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation
The site is designated Commercial Corridor (CC) & Employment Area Valley (EAV) on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Lands designated Commercial Corridor (CC) on the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map are intended to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business
areas characterized by enhanced site planning incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated
access, amenities, and boulevard treatment. Lands in the EAV designation are intended to allow the
gradual transition of the Valley from traditional industrial and warehousing uses to more intensive retail
service and office activities. However, a majority of the site is designated CC; a very small area on the
western portion of the site is designated EAV. For the purposes of the Site Plan Review the CC policies
were used to review the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan
Land Use and Community Design Element policies as long as all conditions of approval are complied
with:
Land Use Element
Objective LU-GGG: Guide redevelopment of land in the Commercial Corridor designation with
Commercial Arterial zoning, from the existing strip commercial forms into more concentrated forms, in
which structures and parking evolve from the existing suburban form, to more efficient urban
configurations with cohesive site planning.
® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preli ory Report to the Hearing Examiner
WALMART EXPANSION is LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 6 of 20
Policy LU -358: Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially
along roadways, to reduce visual impacts.
® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met
Policy LU -369: Development should be designed to consider potential adverse impacts on adjacent, less
intensive uses, e.g. lighting, londscoping, and setbacks should all be considered during design.
® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met
Community Design Element
Policy CD -17: Development should be designed (e.g. building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas
and open space, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a high quality development as a
primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration.
® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met
Policy CD -21: Development should have buildings oriented toward the street or a common area rather
than toward parking lots.
® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met
b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation
The subject site is designated Commercial Arterial (CA) & Medium Industrial (IM) on the City of Renton
Zoning Map. However, a majority of the site is zoned CA; a very small area on the western portion of
the site is designated IM. For the purposes of the Site Plan Review the CA standards were used to
review the proposal.
Use: The subject site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). The purpose of the CA zone is to evolve from
"strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning,
incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment. The
CA zone provides for a wide variety of indoor and outdoor retail sales and services. Big box retail sales
and outdoor retail sales are permitted uses in the CA zone.
Lot Coverage: The CA zoning designation allows a maximum building coverage of 65 percent of the site
area. The proposed building footprint of 140,896 square feet on the 594,553 square foot commercial
building pad results in a building lot coverage of 25.3 percent. The proposed structure complies with
the development standard for lot coverage.
Setbacks: The CA zoning designation would require a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet and a
maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. No other side or rear setbacks are required. The applicant has
depicted lot lines that reflect an approved Short Plat (LUA09-158,SHPL-A), submitted as a separate
application, which has not been recorded. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the
applicant shall be required to record the short plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on
Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to
the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit application,
as long as all development standards of the CA zone can be met.
The property has frontage on three streets; SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S/SR167. For the
purposes of setbacks the front yard will be considered Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S/SR167 with a
side yard along -a -street for SW 7th St. The proposed building would be set back from the front property
line approximately 555 feet at the closest point; from the Garden Center to Hardie Ave SW. An
approximate 150 -foot side yard setback is proposed from the pending north property line shared with
the Columbia Bank property. The structure is setback approximately 65 feet from the western property
line and 15 feet from the southern property line; these setbacks would not change as a result of the
proposal. The existing and proposed portions of the structure, do not comply with the maximum front
yard setback requirement. However, as the situation is existing and the proposed expansions would
not increase the non -conformity of the structure; a variance is not necessary. The proposal complies
with all other setback regulations of the zone.
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preli 'nary Report to the Hearing Examiner
WAL MART EXPANSION [UA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 7 of 20
Height: The CA zone allows a maximum building height of 50 feet. The bulk of the one story building
has a flat roof with a height of 21 feet and 4 inches. The tallest point of the building would be the top
of the curved parapet on the eastern elevation extending above the flat roof; which would have a
height of 32 feet and 4 inches. Two additional flat parapets extending above the flat roof are also
depicted on the eastern elevation, to the north and south of the curved parapet; which would have
heights of 25 feet and 8 inches. The proposed building design includes varying roof heights, material
and roof shapes along the front facade in order to break up larger architectural elements into smaller
increments. The proposal complies with the height requirements of the CA zone.
Tree Retention: Renton Municipal Code requires that 10% of the trees on the site be retained. The
applicant submitted a tree inventory plan as part of the site plan application. There are 99 existing
trees located within the existing surface parking lot and the perimeter of the site. Of the 99 trees on
site, 15 are proposed for removal; 5 coniferous and 10 deciduous. The trees proposed for removal
would be located just north of the proposed expanded area in addition to a few trees located just east
of the structure. The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain the
mature tree cover thereby exceeding the tree retention requirements of the code. As a result of the
preservation of the mature vegetation, the existing location and spacing of landscape islands on site
had to be maintained. Therefore the parking stalls, which do not comply with the dimensional
requirements of the code, could not be brought into conformity.
RMC 4-4-130 provides protection measures in order to preserve and protect the trees to be retained in
those areas that are being disturbed during utility and building construction. The trees shall be fenced
off around the drip line and a sign posted that the trees to be preserved and the location of the trees
shall be indicated on all utility construction plan sheets. The fencing shall be in place prior to the
issuance of any utility construction permits and shall remain until the final inspection of the new
building is complete.
Landscaping: The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street frontages. The landscaping
requirements apply to the subject site's Hardie Ave SW, SW 7 1 St and Rainier Ave S/SR 167 frontages.
All frontages have fully established landscaping with full-sized trees.
A conceptual landscape plan was submitted showing additional area and enhancements to the existing
landscape buffers along the perimeter of the site and the interior of the site. Perimeter landscaping
along Rainier Ave S/SR 167 and Hardie Ave SW is proposed at a width of approximately 55 feet and SW
7th St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20 feet. In the expanded parking area, the
applicant is proposing intervening landscaping every six parking stalls. Additional trees within the
frontages would be spaced at 35 feet on center and will reach a mature height of approximately 35
feet.
The proposed landscaping would consists of several different plant species including Palo Alto
sweetgum and 'Cascade Snow' flowering cherry trees. Shrubbery will consists of dwarf winged
euonymus, rhododendron, shrub rose, dense spreading yew and 'Fairy Queen' spiraea. In addition
there are several groundcovers proposed consisting of ornamental grasses and creeping mahonia. The
'Palo Alto' sweetgum is proposed in several areas in order to maintain consistency with existing
vegetation on site.
Within the proposed surface parking lot, 35 square feet of landscaping per parking space would be
required for parking lots with 100 or more parking stalls. Based on the proposal of 745 surface parking
stalls, a minimum of 26,075 square feet of landscaping would be required within the surface parking
areas. The submitted landscape analysis indicates that a total of 65,690 square feet of landscaping
would be provided on site; of which approximately 30,000 square feet would be located within the
surface parking lot. All landscaping, especially the retained mature vegetation; would be used to
reduce the aesthetic impact of the surface parking lot. As proposed the parking lot landscaping would
exceed the minimum requirement.
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Cam ity & Economic Development Preii nary Report to the Hearing Examiner
WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 8 of 20
Underground sprinkler systems are required to be installed and maintained for all landscaped areas.
The sprinkler system shall provide full water coverage of the planted areas specified on the plan. A
detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan will need to be submitted and approved prior to building
permit approval.
Access: Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing curb cuts along SW 7th
St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. There are three full access points along SW
7`h St; one full access point along Hardie Ave SW and SW Grady Way. There is a right-in/right-out access
point on Rainier Ave 5/SR 167. The site contains private internal roads and access easements which
connect to the public street system. There is no proposal to modify the access for the site.
Parking: The parking regulations require a specific number of off-street parking stalls be provided based
on the amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses.
The followine ratios would be annlicable to the site:
Use
Square Footage of Use
RatioRequired
Spaces
Big Box Retail
150,244 SF
Min: 4 spaces / 1,000 SF
Max: 5 spaces/ 1,000 SF
Min: 601
Max: 751
Based on these use requirements, at least 601 parking spaces would be required in order to meet code
with no more than 751 spaces. The applicant proposes to provide no more than 745 spaces within the
surface parking lot at its peak; when the outdoor sales area is not in use. Of the 745 parking stalls, 618
stalls are existing. The applicant complies with the parking stall requirement for big box retail and
outdoor retail sales.
The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain a mature tree cover.
As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the existing location and spacing of landscape
islands had to be maintained. Therefore, existing parking stalls are not compliant with the dimensional
requirements of the parking code. The stalls are 9 x 18 feet instead of the required 9 x 20 feet.
However, as the situation is existing a parking modification is not necessary. All new parking stalls
comply with the dimensional requirements of the zone. Aisle widths of 24 feet have been provided for
the 90 degree parking stalls with a two-way traffic flow.
Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas: The applicant has requested a modification from the City's Refuse
and Recyclable standards in order to reduce the size of the required refuse deposit area. Retail
developments, require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor
area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building
gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area for
recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. The code applies in this instance due
to the proposed expansions of the facility which would require a 751 square foot deposit area for
recyclables (751 SF = 5 x 155,244/1,000 SF) and a 1,502 square foot deposit area for refuse (1,502 = 10 x
[155,244/1,000 SF]). The proposed recyclable deposit area complies with Renton Municipal Code.
However, the proposed refuse deposit area is less than the minimum required and a modification from
the code requirement was requested. The applicant has proposed the use of a self contained
compactor which has been engineered for high volume usage. Staff has reviewed the request and
issued an approval of the modification. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on April 2, 2010 and ended
on April 16, 2010. No appeals of the decision were filed.
The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the facility would be located north of the expansion area
away from the pedestrian environment. Specific screening elevations and details were not submitted
with the land use application. In order to review consistency with the design of the primary structure
staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit screening detail for the refuse and
recyclable deposit area prior to building permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preli ' ary Report to the Hearing Examiner
WALMARr EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2010 �i Page 9 of 20
around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is
prohibited.
Signage — There is existing signage for the building currently on the project site. Alterations and
additions to existing signage were not reviewed as part of the Site Plan Review. Signage will be
reviewed under a separate permit.
c) Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses;
The building would maintain its same location in the western portion of the project site with surface
parking areas located along the north, west and east sides of the building. The building's orientation
will also remain the same, the entrance facing east towards Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The proposed project
will result in an expansion of the existing retail space, the demolition of an existing restaurant, paving of
the commercial pad north of the expansion area with associated landscaping, lighting and parking
improvements. The applicant has confined development of the expansions to the same general area of
the existing facility. City staff does not anticipate any adverse impact on surrounding properties and
uses as long as the conditions of approval are complied with.
Lind Plaza, a warehouse and office space, is located on the property abutting to the west and is zoned
Medium industrial (IM). All other surrounding properties are zoned Commercial Arterial. Jimmy Mac's
and Popeye's are located to the east of the proposed project site. Renton Honda and a strip retail
building are located on the properties abutting to the south. Columbia Bank and the Renton School
District Administration building are located to the north of the subject site. The proposed expansion of
Walmart is anticipated to be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses as permitted in the
CA and IM zones.
There are two street -facing elevations; the north and eastern facades. The eastern facade incorporates
prominent architectural features including extending parapets, vestibules, clerestory windows,
canopies and ornamental lighting. All of the architectural elements are used to distinguish the two
building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large facade. The pattern and proportion
of windows and entrances along the eastern facade and the architectural elements along the northern
facade enhance the building's architectural character. Increased setbacks and variable roof heights
divide the building's mass into increments that correspond to the scale and massing of neighboring
structures. However, additional human scale elements should be incorporated into the design of the
eastern elevation in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian
environment. The northern facade includes the use of three pilaster elements similar to that which is
used to wrap around the Garden Center. While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest
which break up the wall plane there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the
pilaster elements thereby breaking up the uniformity of the facade. Conditions of approval, related to
the design elements, are recommended within the design review portion of this report. To ensure that
quality materials are used staff will also be recommending the applicant submit a material and colors
board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of building permit
review.
While there is an exceptional amount of parking, the interior of the parking lot has been heavily
landscaped in order to mitigate impacts to neighboring properties. In addition the applicant has
exceeded the landscaping requirements along the frontage of the site in order to buffer the large
surface parking lot.
The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the facility would maintain their existing location, located
on the north fagade of the existing building. With the use of a compactor, which has been engineered
for high volume usage, it is anticipated that there would be a reduction in the refuse pickup while
eliminating fluid seepage and minimization of odors.
HEX Report
City of Renton Department o/ Com ity & Economic Development Pre i ary Report to the Hearing Examiner
WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA-HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 10 of 20
d) Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site;
The proposed building footprint of 140,896 square feet on the 594,553 square foot site results in a
building lot coverage of 25.3 percent. Therefore there would not be an over-concentration of structural
improvements on the large site. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed building are also
appropriate for the scale of the site. However, it is challenging to create a big box retail store
compatible with smaller commercial uses in the vicinity especially in this case with the limitation of
expanding on an existing structure. The applicant has achieved a compatibility with the expansions and
fagade treatments which create architectural and visual interest that break up the massing of the
structure.
The proposed building would be located in the western portion of the project site with surface parking
areas located along the north, west and east sides of the building. Prevailing winds in the area are from
the southwest during most of the year (fall, winter and spring) as well as the direction of sunlight.
While the structure will continue to cast shade on areas of the cross-walk and new plaza area in the
afternoon; the site layout is existing. The applicant has taken measures to provide new ornamental
lighting within the plaza area in order to adequately illuminate the area for pedestrians.
The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain the mature tree
cover. The existing vegetation, predominately located east of the structure, would receive adequate
sun exposure and would not be affected by the proposed expansion. While there would be shade cast
onto proposed trees north of the expanded area in the afternoon, the trees should receive adequate
sunlight. In addition, the applicant has proposed vegetation consistent with that which is exist on site.
A conceptual landscape plan was submitted showing enhancements and additional area to the Existing
landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site.
Due to the requirement and need for parking it is a challenge to limit the paved and/or impervious
surfaces on the site. While there is an exceptional amount of parking; the lot has been heavily
landscaped. In addition the applicant is proposing an additional bio-swale in order to provide additional
water quality treatment. The applicant is taking special measures to protect landscaping from damage
by vehicles and/or pedestrian traffic by providing defined pedestrian and vehicular areas.
e] Conservation of area-wide property values;
The proposed development is expected to conserve and possibly increase property values in the vicinity
of the site. The development of the site provides improvements to infrastructure, landscaping, lighting
and fagade treatments for the facility.
fJ Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the Transpo Group, dated October 2009.
The proposed development is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City's street system.
Approximately 608 new average daily trips are estimated to be generated by the proposed expansion.
In order to mitigate the anticipated increase in traffic on the City's street system, the City's
Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure on the project requiring the payment
of a Traffic Mitigation Fee prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The site is situated between public arterials on the northern, eastern and southern property lines.
Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing curb cuts along SIN 7th St,
Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167_ There are three full access points along SW 7th
St; one full access point along Hardie Ave SW and SW Grady Way. There is a right-in/right-out access
point on Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The site development would include 745 parking stalls, of which 19 are
ADA accessible; which complies with the parking requirements for the proposed use. Existing parking
stalls are not compliant with the dimensional requirements of the parking code. The stalls are 9 x 18
feet instead of the required 9 x 20 feet. All new stalls would comply with the dimensional requirements
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Cam ity & Economic Development Preli ' ory Report to the Hearing Examiner
WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, 5A -HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2010 _ Page 11 of 20
of the code. The applicant has proposed 90 degree head -in parking using a two way circulation pattern
and aisle widths of 24 feet which also comply with the aisle width standards of the code.
internal pedestrian connections to the existing public sidewalk network are proposed in order to
provide safe and efficient pedestrian access throughout the site and to other abutting sites. The
existing elevated concrete pedestrian walkway running through the center of the parking lot from the
eastern facade to the eastern property line which abuts Rainier Ave S/SR 167 is proposed to be widened
and enhanced. The applicant is also proposing pedestrian scale lighting along the walkway. An
additional pedestrian connection, between the subject site and SW 7th St, is also being provided.
Pedestrian crosswalks, between the front facade and the parking lot, will be differentiated from the
drive aisles through the use of concrete which will also be striped. The proposed development is
expected to maintain safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle circulation on the site.
gj Provision of adequate light and air;
The proposed building is designed appropriately to allow adequate light and air circulation to the
building and the site. The design of the expansions would not result in excessive shading of the
property. In addition, there is ample area surrounding the building to provide for normal airflow.
Exterior onsite lighting, including security and parking lot lighting, would be regulated by code.
Compliance with this code (RMC 4-4-075) ensures that all building lights are directed onto the building
or the ground and can not trespass beyond the property lines. According to code, parking lot lighting
fixtures are to be non -glare and mounted no more than 25 feet above the ground.
The primary pedestrian connection to Rainier Ave S is proposed to have 12 and 14 -foot tall pedestrian
lighting. Decorative sconces are proposed in order to illuminate the entrances to the building.
Pedestrian lighting is used to illuminate the translucent canopy at night to provide for a safer
environment for customers. Wall pack lights are proposed around the perimeter of the building for
safety.
The existing parking lot lighting is 40 -feet in height which does not comply with City code. The applicant
is proposing to maintain consistency with existing lighting on site and surrounding properties.
Approximately three new, 40 -foot, light poles are proposed in the expanded parking area. A lighting
plan was not submitted with the application materials. Staff is recommending, as a condition of Site
Plan Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for
public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit
review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and
vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or
is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
In addition the
h) Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions;
There are potential short-term impacts to adjacent businesses (e.g., noise), which would result from the
construction of the project. The Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated
November 30, 2009, recommended the use of augercast piles in order to support the structure's
foundation. In lieu of augercast pile, the study indicates that the applicant could use small -diameter
steel pipe piles in order to support the structure. Noise and vibration impacts can be associated with
pipe pile driving. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan which provides measures
to reduce construction impacts such as noise, dust and traffic during construction. However, the ERC
Committee issued a SEPA mitigation measure, stating if pipe piles are used to support the proposed
structure the applicant would be required to provide a noise and vibration study prior to construction
permit approval. Upon completion of construction, the project is not expected to create additional
noise or odor beyond that which is currently attributed to the existing Walmart retail store.
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Cam rty & Economic Development Pre Dry Report to the Hearing Examiner
WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA-HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 12 of 20
i) Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use;
Fire and Police Department staff have indicated that existing facilities are adequate to accommodate
the subject proposal, subject to the applicant's payment of the necessary impact fees. As imposed by
the ERC Committee, the applicant will be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee prior to the issuance of
building permits.
The site is served by the City of Renton for all utilities. There is an existing 12 -inch looped water main
on the site serving the retail store. The site is served by a private on-site system which connects a City
of Renton line directly to the King County Metro line.
The project site is located within the Black River drainage basin of the Duwamish-Green River Drainage
watershed. Existing stormwater runoff from the site flows towards multiple existing catch basins where
it is collected and discharged to the existing stormwater conveyance system. The water flows to an
existing biofiltration swale located in the northwestern portion of the site which was designed to treat
the existing parking lot areas. The bioswale provides treatment prior to the runoff being discharged to
the existing storm system in SW 7'" Street.
The applicant submitted a "Technical Information Report," prepared by PACLAND. (dated February 5,
2010) as part of the application materials. As stated in the Technical Information Report, the proposed
project improvements generate a 0.035 cfs increase in the 100 -year peak flow rate. The post -
developed peak flow is less than 0.5 cfs more than the existing peak flow, therefore the project is
exempt from flow control requirements. The proposed conveyance system has been designed to
convey runoff for the new impervious surfaces. Additional water quality treatment, in the form of a
new bioswale is proposed, as the project would add more than 5,000 square feet of new pollution
generating impervious surfaces.
j) Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight;
The proposal is not expected to cause neighborhood deterioration and/or blight. Conversion of
underutilized land will add value to the site. Coordinated site improvements including landscaping,
parking, signage and lighting would be included as part of this development.
kl Review of Compliance to District 'D' Design Guidelines;
The site is located within Design District 'D'_ The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design
Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal
meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval
are met.
A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the
City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from
public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts
that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and
intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle
circulation; and provide service to businesses.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to
public arterials.
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
N/A
promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway
system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design
treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function.
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Comity & Economic Development
WALMART EXPANSION
Hearing Date April 27, 2010
j&Lnary Report to the Hearing Examiner
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Page 13 of 20
HEX Report
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of
pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street
parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) Internal or local roads (public or private).
2. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways;
organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so
that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character
and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas,
and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street.
✓
Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but
instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard.
3. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries
further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing
✓
a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public
sidewalk, and include human -scale elements.
Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network
N/A
of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view
to building entries.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open
space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
✓
Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection
at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access.
✓
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges,
adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development:
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing
neighborhoods are preserved.
Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a
✓
compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of
building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be
considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses:
a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in
order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent
yards;
b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels;
c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or
d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development.
S. Service Element Location and Design:
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by
locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in
high visibility areas.
Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts
✓
on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and
located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see
illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e).
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed,
Not Compliant
consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening
and Storage Height/Location Limitations.
Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Comrrity & Economic Development
WALAIART EXPANSION
Hearing Date April 27, 2010
tory Report to the Hearing Examiner
M LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Page 14 of 20
HEX Report
plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit
elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure.
Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling
Not Compliant
collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened
around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors.
StaffComment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -
oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides
of such facility.
6. Gateways: Not Applicable
B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various
modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from
vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking
areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot
siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets
and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
1. Location of Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of
buildings.
Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front
property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot.
Staff Comment: The bulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and
Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls
of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing
parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment
Not Compliant
and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing a
substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual impact
in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site.
Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave S/SR 167 is proposed of a width of
approximately 55 feet and SW e St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20
feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to
minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street.
2. Design of Surface Parking:
Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking
lots wherever possible.
Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties.
Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials,
Not Compliant
therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent
properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site
lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction or building permit approval.
Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact
(see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements).
3. Structured Pa rki ng Garages: Not Applicable
C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating
pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the
pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on
sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public
transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic.
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Corn ity & Economic Development Preli nary Report to the Hearing Examiner
WALMART EXPANSION i LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2010
Page 15 of 20
1. Pathways through Parking Lots:
Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots.
✓
Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be
provided throughout parking areas.
✓
Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided
perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart.
2. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the
pedestrian environment.
✓
Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system
that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk
system and adjacent properties.
✓
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above
the level of vehicular travel.
Vol
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be
differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials.
✓
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of
sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users_ Specifically:
N/A
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more
feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width.
The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees
(see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d).
Or
(b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to
major building entries shall be allowed.
V,
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to
accommodate the anticipated number of users.
✓
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety_ Landscaping
shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries_
V
Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface
unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development.
3. Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all
times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
✓
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, or building overhangs_ These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet
wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 1S
feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
✓
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal -
and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably
maintained over an extended period of time.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access
to public spaces or building entrances.
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION
AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and
vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable
for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient
amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic
relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community.
HEX Report
City of Renton Deportment of Com m-ty & Economic Development
WALMART EXPANSION
Hearing Date April 27, 2010
iary Report to the Hearing Examiner
I LUA10-009, ECF, 5A -HH
Page 16 of 20
HEX Report
Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping).
Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and
building, as determined by the City of Renton.
N/A
Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed
with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City
of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a).
Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and
program of the building, the site, and use.
J
Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping,
through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or
concept of the development.
Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce
views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Such
landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration,
subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b).
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street
frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet_
Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four
feet from the top of the root ball) respectively_
Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped
area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between
three and four feet.
d
Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least
90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation_
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to
occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure
required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation_
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as ❑ condition of approval, the applicant submit a
landscape maintenance surety device for ❑ period of no less than three years in sufficient
amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit.
+�
Minimum
Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows:
(1)
Required Amount:
Total Number of Spaces
Minimum Required Landscape Area*
15 to 50
15 square feet/parking space
51 to 99
25 square feet/parking space
100 or more
35 square feet/parking space
(2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape
areas.
Not Compliant
(3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that
reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be
eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball)
respectively.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to
maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the
existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the
landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not
be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not
necessary. All new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard for tree spacing.
(4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous.
.�
(5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of
planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete.
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Comrrity & Economic Development
WALMART EXPANSION
Hearing Date April 27, 2010
Report to the Hearing Examiner
LUA10-009. ECF. 5A -HH
Page 17 of 20
HEX Report
(6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
✓
Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are
kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape
areas.
Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff
recommends; as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit
approval.
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not Applicable
E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and
uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
retail architecture.
1. Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all
sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of
no more than forty feet (40').
Staff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the
southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with
the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing
elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with
architectural elements, however these facades would also not comply with the minimum
modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two 80 foot vestibules along the
approximate 500 foot eastern fa�ode which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which
exceeds the 40 foot intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies,
ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to
distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large
fagade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many
architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest
along the eastern fagade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7t' St
facing fagode has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern facade includes the use
of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center.
While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest, which break up the wall plane,
there ore additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements
which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a
condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern facade,
that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval.
2. Ground -Level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the
pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual
interest.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways are prohibited_ A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is
considered a blank wall if:
(a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a
horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building
modulation or other architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater
and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Comm ty & Economic Development
WALMART EXPANSION
Hearing Date April 27, 2010
ory Report to the Hearing Examiner
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Page 18 of 20
HEX Report
treated with one or more of the following:
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground
cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall,-
all;(b)
(b)Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines,-
ines;(c)
(c)Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing
that meets the intent of this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
(e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
✓
Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall.
✓
Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other
landscape feature along the facade's ground floor.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75
percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation
facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or
doors.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the
eastern fagade. However, the applicant has provided extending parapets, clerestories,
canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree
in order to break up the monotony of the large fagade and provide human scale elements_
Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural
features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved
visual interest along the eastern fagade for the distant public. However, additional elements
could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of
the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant
provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval. The revised
elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are, beneath
the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is
encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale
character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs,
evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade.
Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following:
✓
(a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building.
However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum
amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent.
✓
(b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than
permanent displays_
✓
(c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing_
✓
(d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited.
3. Building Roof Lines:
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and
contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
✓
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied
and interesting roof profiles:
(a) Extended parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
✓
Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the
equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
✓
Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the
building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment_
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preli ary Report to the Nearing Examiner
WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, 5A -HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 19 of 20
HEX Report
portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher
elevations_
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color of
the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof.
4. Building Materials:
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials
that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the
neighborhood.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open
space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color
scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Staff Comment: It appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the some color
scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff
recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture,
pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Staff Comment: See Condition above.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal
banding, patterns, or textural changes.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
F. SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage
signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to
the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include:
i. Pole signs;
ii. Roof signs;
iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet
signs)_ Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are
signs with only the individual letters back -lit.
N/A
Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with
the overall building design.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of
primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support
structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to
provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may
incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
G. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas,
pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual
attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in
RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
SLoffCommen : Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required
to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive
glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and
downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement,
unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preli nary Report to the Nearing Examiner
WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH
Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 20 of 20
!. RECOMMENDATION.
Staff recommends approval of the Walmart Expansion, Project File No. LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -
Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010.
2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on
Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to
the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all
development standards of the CA zone can be met.
3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building
permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have
self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian
scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement,
unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as
exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three
years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary
occupancy permit.
The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction or building permit approval.
The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern facade, which depict alternative methods
to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval
subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include
additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that
extends to south of the northern entrance.
9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed
portions of the roof.
10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
EXPIRATION PERIODS:
Site Plan Approval expires two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC
section 4-7-080.M.
HEX Report
specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be
allowed to directly project off-site.
Staff Comment: See comments above
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and
aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades,
and at pedestrian -oriented spaces_
Staff Comment: See comments above
!. RECOMMENDATION.
Staff recommends approval of the Walmart Expansion, Project File No. LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -
Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010.
2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on
Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to
the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all
development standards of the CA zone can be met.
3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building
permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have
self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian
scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement,
unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as
exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three
years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary
occupancy permit.
The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction or building permit approval.
The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern facade, which depict alternative methods
to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval
subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include
additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that
extends to south of the northern entrance.
9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed
portions of the roof.
10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
EXPIRATION PERIODS:
Site Plan Approval expires two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC
section 4-7-080.M.
HEX Report
Amk F3 - 18 T23N R5E W 1/2
rm g
C Ca
SYJ ]mY ��5im
%mop
m
4 ..
CA
rm
SITE CA.
y
m
rm
- ca
rm S w�
Ca ca Ca
I r rMCA CA
co
CA L.�
a rm �„ CA
rm rm
co rm
W �
v 3 rm
Friil cO Im rm rm - rm H g R-8 W
s+sm sr
Nsw tem sl swims,
N
i
N
rM
c0
IL
c0
c°
IL
ZONING MAP BOOK H3 - 30 T23N
PW TECHNICAL SERVICES
PRINTED ON 11/13/09
•> doc�m�nl k a YaF1Yt repnrnblwn, rq
guaraMeedm surveyxmxY. aiM.rt hawa n
rte bex inbrmalrm anWek as oithe ble f Ygxn.
mf�laaam.�e�e b. cin e,wav ��moaR �rY. 0 200 400
13)
Oily nr ` ` Feet
1,4,800
VI
- R-8
r+
a v �
{ R-1
R-8
R-8
EXHIBIT 2
1
3
19 T23N R5E W 112
919
7r1K11K1r_ AAAD rlr)r)!
74W: 92 93' _ 455 ; ~, 1�~ 456 459
f 461:
- B n BG �7
26724N R4E 25 T23Q 24N R5E "� °°"� i
T2 N R
9 4 5 T24 .R E "
26 N 5 27124N 135E -_
81 - 26 T24N R5E
456W r 5 I' 4_58 II a 46a� 464
-
_C -
'C
e
T24N R4E 36 T24N R4E
35 I '� � � � - 4N RSE E, 351�4N R5E
3DBtw8 `
3d7 L -8.0
-801
3Q9
II D3
1TriE 1 -2� R4B 6.T23N R5E - - - )... i i
T T23NTi5E 4 T23N R5E .T23N RSE' 2 T23N RSE
31
�-77—
r 36 80 8D6Ji
I'
1 I i
1 -
S
-7
ji 7
11 T N R4E 12 T23N.R5E
3-2 rry} 1` 3 R5E -.9 T23N R5E' I 10 T23N R r_'-- -4. f_ N R5E
T23N 1
32--
327 I 370
F:
TI
^y
.1 _ �3_TrI4 5 -_
4T23NR4E _T23N1 4E TIIlIf II \ I
8 R 1&T23N R5E' i-' 17 T2 R5E 16 T23N R5E 1 T23N 4E 14.T23N 1;
',,3i5336 33. i 371 815 816 - -E
-.7
2 G4
T23 -
.IV R —` 24T231� R4E
19 T23N R5E 20, 23N R5E 1 21 T23N R5E 22 T23 R5E 23 T23N 2r
34434 - - 600 601_ 602
820 821 8
T23N R4E25 T23 -- - .GH H H7,_ N R5'98-T23N 5E-- 30 T23 26 T23N R5E
-T23NR5E v
25
X64 '' 11 603_6a
5
L - ---= 4 605 825' 826 $;
]ZL
I1! I I - 1.6 17
i 3 E 36 T23N R4E 31 T23 R5E 3g -723N RE 33 T23N -- .34 T23N R5E 35 T23N R5E 36
6fl� 608 ��' 6a9 i�r I 1 �
i 610 .1 632 833
22N R4E 1 T22 4E 6 T22N R5E iJ 5 T22�1 FESE 4 TN•J$E n` 3 T22N RSE 2 T22N R5E 1 T2
MIXED USE CENTERS
RESIDENTIAL
0
(RC) Resource Conservation
R -i
(R-1) Residential 1 du/ac
n
(R-4) Residential 4 du/ac
-s
(R-8) Residential 8 du/ac
Rm
(RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes
R-io
(R-10) Residential10 du/ac
R-34
(R-14) Residential14 du/ac
LR�
(RM -F) Residential Multi -Family
eM-T
(RM -T) Residential Multi -Family Traditional
RM -u
(RM -U) Residential Multi -Family Urban Center
This tlocvmni Is 9'ophlc r on`mlat'- .0 aquvmleeG
:y ""T-ly ana
ILS best c.cilohe s N :�e tlal. nnov
sed o. nformalien
Thls mop 's kr drs{ay purh�s-s _niy
MIXED USE CENTERS
INDUSTRIAL
=� (CV) Center Village
77 tlLj Industrial - Light
uc—ra (UC -N1) Urban Center- North 1
�(IM) Industrial - Medium
c� (UC -N2) Urban Center- North 2
]t {IH) Industrial - Heavy
CLt (CD) Center Downtown
u
COMMERCIAL
----- Renton City Limits
cos (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential
(CA) Commercial Arterial
---- ALijncent City Limits
co (CO) Commercial Office
KROLL
PAGE
(CN) Commercial Neighborhood
PAGE#
INDEX
SEC7/rGWN1WGE
u
f "7
In
rrr
kht
CPO
hIL
A, K:
ww
'A
L I
F!� 0
co
5
1
LU
ZI!
f "7
In
rrr
kht
CPO
r r i
I J2
7
F -
hIL
A, K:
'A
L I
F!� 0
5
r r i
I J2
7
F -
Amat - am 'M mi W % X.� .,AIL,*^YwM_�q %, v -Y
A, K:
'A
L I
F!� 0
5
1
Amat - am 'M mi W % X.� .,AIL,*^YwM_�q %, v -Y
A, K:
%
L I
5
1
Amat - am 'M mi W % X.� .,AIL,*^YwM_�q %, v -Y
L �
a
16
co
_ T
U ! Z
. V
NS l3AV 2WH _ r r ns'9db
�Uh ' d -
r
C..Il �, n 4_ r d•
ir
IECa
LU
�� f tai g Ee
! i •
5V4 _ 11
'Fir bad
1p
lu
i6e
Oil
b
1l
t � �
.3
L'4:J.i r f F
5V4 _ 11
•
+ Si ��` 3 �
1l
t � �
.3
L'4:J.i r f F
e I
_
1
�Lzs - ols R a3 dw-lolt:brul�rxur��"^�7 au t w d�lA�lalWalw6rnl�a
4'" n
x
�e
—99
g
$ �p�� n2� as Y
95 "-_i3 . Y
jxx-
fig
;Ig a� Ali s' x9an ;L S
&, ra Y 9 H a
Ab OB
IVA
Z CK'nCnA" °SEE �E� his
ge
M it 14WEIV: a
R
0
i
J
CL
co
A k
•��r rr� �+ - nac� arch-c�vv�a! ,. ,� LY1�
I
�Ka - olot •s[ sre bP16gK7Ne1S�IIwra0L1"'.'�'�`3 +1(z fr ..wy,vu..6�mlwy�mle.�a1t
§
§
&
|
|�
_�
/§k
k
#
�
§
a
4f&
_
$
\
OT -
H
ca
H
�
W
Ln
TEE
n
h
1
a
cc
4-
a
T7
Denis Law City a}_
MayorAk
V \"
Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
March 25, 2010
Usunobun Osaigie
Larry D. Craighead
211 N. Record St, Ste 222
Dallas, TX 75202
Subject: Walmart EXpansion Modification Request
743 Rainier Ave 5
File No. LUA10-009, 5A -H, ECF
Dear Mr. Osaigie:
This letterissent in response to your March 4, 2010 request for modifications from the City's Refuse
and Recyclables regulations (RMC 4-4-090). The request was included as part of the land use application
for the expansion of the Renton Walmart location.
Summary of Request
The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of
retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing
16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden
Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with
modifications along the eastern facade. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface
parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking
stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces.- As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is
proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing
restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located
within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located
within Urban Design District D. Access would continue to be provided via existing_ driveways along SW
7th Street, Rainier Ave 5, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for
refuse deposits. An administrative modification has been requested in order to reduce the refuse
deposit area from 1,502 square feet to 30 cubic yards.
Section 4-4-090.F allows the Administrator to grant modifications from the refuse and recyclable
standards for individual cases; provided the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC
4-9-250.D.2):
a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection
and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering
judgment; and
b. Will not be injurious to other property(les) in the vicinity; and
Renton City Hal! • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
C. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and
Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
Background
The applicant, Larry D. Craighead Architects, has requested a modification from the City's Refuse and
Recyclable Standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) in order to reduce the size of the required refuse deposit area.
Retail developments, require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross
floor area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of
building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area
for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. The code applies in this instance
due to the proposed expansions of the facility which would require a 751 square foot deposit area for
recyclables (751 SF = 5 x 155,244/1,060 SF) and a 1,502 square foot deposit area for refuse (1,502 = 10 x
[155,244/1,000 SF]). The proposed recyclable deposit area complies with Renton Municipal Code.
However, the proposed refuse deposit area is less than the minimum required. Therefore, a
modification request has been made on behalf of Walmart.
Analysis
a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and
maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment.
If approved, the size of the refuse deposit area would be a reduction from the 1,502 square feet
required to a 30 cubic yard area. The applicant contends that a reduction in the required size of
the refuse deposit area is appropriate due to the use of a compacter which has been engineered
for high volume usage. The applicant contends the self contained compactor would reduce
refuse pickup while eliminating fluid seepage and minimizing odors thus meeting the objectives
of the refuse and recyclable standards.
Staff concurs the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the refuse and
recyclable standards by providing adequate refuse deposit areas in the amount necessary for
the Walmart.
b) Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
The applicant contends the proposed refuse deposit area and use of the self contained
compactor would be adequate for the expanded facility. Staff concurs, the proposed refuse and
recyclable deposit areas would provide adequate space to handle .the needs for the existing and.
proposed facility. It is not anticipated that the approval.of a modification to permit a 30 cubic.
yard compact refuse deposit area, as opposed to 1,502 square foot conventional space, would
be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
C) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code.
See discussion under criterion "a)" above.
d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended.
The refuse and recyclable standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) require a minimum of 10 square feet per
1,000 square feet of building gross floor area be 'provided for refuse deposit areas. The
applicant contends and staff concurs; that based upon the use of a compactor, which has been
engineered for high volume usage, it is anticipated the reduction of the required deposit areas is
considered to be reasonable.
e) Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
As stated under criterion "a)" & "b)", the proposed reduction of the refuse deposit area should
not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity of the retail store.
Decision
The refuse and recyclable deposit area modification for the Walmart Expansion is hereby approved.
Aggeal Process: Appeals of this administrative decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p:m.
April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, with:
Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner
are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
If you have questions regarding this decision feel free to contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, -at
(425) 430-7219.
Sincerely,
T-
9.
9. 3 771�bo
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director date
Planning Division
cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager
Parties of Record
Yellow File
0 to
City of
!
NOTIC
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING
ISSUANCE OF A OETERMINATTON OF MCWSICENIRCANCE- MITIGATED (DNS Ml
PCFSIEO TO NO'I1FY IN7ERE5fED PERSONS OF M EiW 01ONMENTALACTION
PIIOIR-r TIARRF_ WWowtENP.•.-
PROIECrIMAF - WAR6WS.EG.SAH1
IOgTNNt TF4 R,RIIM A.emr 5
DLWPnDN: llw r p"B k +e9 11wwK E.�RIr Sm M RO„ew snd
EOYYwuwMrl NFPAI AOMw (a tM m of -wo— tr G! -NRW4 W Wrt :e➢ MNr, wK"
mnhlm E34�T,91u,�he of -4v •d41--O4dtlavlBALRI w,whre OOtl fm dr6rd•I Onbr. TM
;pPm,HN p,aP�14 SE.BV4 tWr,a 1paNrMtlmO W e -9 • rrRuloe d RAW RR—e r.mk
tlwiVd,O [ullr.
THE CSLY OF RCNrON EMARONMLMAL RENEW COMM I= (MCI INS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED
ALT,ON DOES NOT WASID N IRCAHT AMFSE IM PACT ON THE EHVIMN MEM.
Aff Nb of 4m eoiaml W deLe� O W Nd b —`ft: w befen SMD P—m APd E4
M0. Appnh I— be %H!I to rr th Wredw r,eh Or ,quem M wW, NWRy E.RW—. MY CF
Rema,,, IM SOW G,tlP WPY, Reorm4 WA 96057. App"14 W NO [anter w pv—d by ON NI
REP Mmkg4 Cod! 6e om, i IVDA. AddRMnf Witt dw r prd6N d* ppul WO m" he
Obdb,ed Fi—i the fftI— OLF URHlt OMIa, WSJ 43114Sie.
A PUBLIC HEMIMG WILL BE HELD BY THE RDrrOM HEAMN6 EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEEnM IN THE
COUNOLCHAMBERS ON THE TIFI FLOOR OF CHT HALL. 0055 SWIH BRADY WAY. REIEr011, WASHIMiTON.
ON AML 17. VW AT 990 AM TO CON510ER THE Sr" PIAN. IF THE FN ONMENTAL OETERMINATMN 5
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PE,FASECOMACT THE QTY OF REHTJN,DEPARTM[NT OF
COMMijNn&ECONOMICDEVEIOPMEIfI ATS It 430.7200.
DO NOT REMOVE TNIS NOTIff YJRHDUT PROPER AEITHORI2A'fION
Pkase I,dude [IFe protect NUMBEII when nRNK for pmper fi4. IdentlflnNon.
CERTIFICATION
�,A r- `17� s , hereby certify that � copies of the above document
were posted in conspicuous places or nearby the described property on
Date: Signed:r-1-zt---
STATE OF WASHINGTON j
j SS
COUNTY OF KING j
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 4e �G 11 'iI'j7�J�'1
signed this instrument and acknowledged it t his/her/their free and voluntary act for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the ins ment.
Dated: /Z e
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Notary (Print): /W//�
My appointment expires:
R
9
I .I Cityal!f
ol .
rf
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: Walmart Expansion
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA10-009, ELF, SA -H
LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Pian Review and
Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which
contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The
applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in
the Garden Center.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED
ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 16,
2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of
Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be
obtained from the Renton City ClerWs Office, (425) 430-6510.
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON,
ON APRIL 27, 2010 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS
APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PARTOF THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification.
Denis Law City
O
Mayor �J
r 4i e
Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
March 25, 2010
Jeff Chambers, P.E.
Pacland
1505 Westlake Avenue N #305
Seattle, WA 98109
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD iSEPAi DETERMINATION
Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Dear Mr. Chambers:
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a
threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures.
Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part -2, Section B for a list of the
Mitigation Measures.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5.00
p.m. on April lb, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee
with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-
110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the.
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
A Public Hearing will be held by,the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers
on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on April
27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the
applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will
be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,
the appeal will be .heard as part of this public hearing.
Renton City Hall a 1055 South Grady Way a Renton, Washington 98057 a rentonwa_gov
,
E Jeff Chambers
March 25, 2010
Page 2 of 2
The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project
and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. if you
have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219.
For the Environmental Rgview Committee,
de
Rocal Timmo
Ass ciate Planner
Enclosure
CC., Peter Bonnell - Bonnell Family LLC / owner(s)
Denis Law Cit O
y Y �}
Ma or
March 25, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch,Administrator
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following
project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 22, 2010:
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED
PROJECT NAME: Walmart Expansion
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan
Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to
the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail
space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The
applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of .additions to the retail space and a
reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center.
Due to a missed publication deadline the appeal period for the above environmental
determination has been extended to meet the required 14 -day time -frame for a public
notice to be published on April 2, 2010 in the City's newspaper of record. Therefore,
appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00
p.m. on April 16, 2010.
All Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing
Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the
Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional
information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's
Office, (42 5) 430-6510.
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 a rentonwa.gov
0 0
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete
details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
i
Roc a Timmo s
As Stant Planner
Enclosure
cc. King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region
Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW
Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal office
Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers
Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY Y City of
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTZ4L� .r0`
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED
APPLICATION NO(S):
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
MITIGATION MEASURES
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Jeff Chambers, Pacland
Walmart Expansion
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Pian Review and
Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility,
which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the
Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a
reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 743 Rainier Avenue S
LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by
Terracon, dated November 30, 2009.
2. The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5,
2010, during project construction.
3. If pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration
study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City also reserves
the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven.
4. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the
applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the
requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and
must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work shall
recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
5. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to
issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00.
6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52 per
net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00.
ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CityoE
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT C 0 8
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED
APPLICATION NO(S):
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
ADVISORY NOTES
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Jeff Chambers, Pacland
Walmart Expansion
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and
Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility,
which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the
Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a
reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 743 Rainier Avenue S
LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Advisory Notes to Applicant:
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental
determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal
process for environmental determinations.
Planning:
1. RMC section 4-4-030.0.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless
otherwise approved by the Development Services Division.
Water:
1. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is based on the size of water meter needed to service the
development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is
payable with a construction or utility permit.
2. The existing fire hydrants may need to be fitted with Stortz fittings to bring them up to current City code.
Sanitary Sewer:
1. The Wastewater System Development Charge is also based on the size of water meter needed to service
the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is
payable with a construction or utility permit.
Surface Water:
1. The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square foot of new impervious
surface area. Minimums may apply, and this fee is payable with a construction or utility permit.
ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2
Transportation: 0 0
1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip, as calculated by the ITE manual.
Fees are due with the building permit for all commercial structures. A traffic study supporting 608 daily
trips was submitted.
2. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated and in compliance when construction occurs on
the site.
Miscellaneous:
1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be
submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued.
2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any
backflow devices will be required..
3. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.
4. A construction permit is required for any utility work. When plans are complete, three copies of the
drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application, and an appropriate fee
shall be submitted to the City Hall sixth floor counter.
ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2
of
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D City
ton r
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
.t
ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON—SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICATION NO(S):
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
— MITIGATED (DNS—M)
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Jeff Chambers, Pacland
Walmart Expansion
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and
Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which
contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center.
The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square
feet in the Garden Center.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 743 Rainier Avenue S
LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under
their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental
impacts identified during the environmental review process.
!c�
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April , 2010. Appeals
must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8.
Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-
6510.
-Agri l 2,
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION: March 22, 2010
SIGNATURES:
- -C,
Gregg Zimmer n, . ministrator
Public Works pa ment Date
Terry Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services Department Date
Mak Peterso , Interim Administrator
Fire & Emer ency Services Date
Ale Pietsch, Administrator
Department of Community & Date
Economic Development
0 0-
�� ��� °�'d� 0 3�3 va a� 3'03. [a'o�•Cia a "w.� o
�7z?pC�rn v oanti c v. m 8zi o a Q
W w ti> c e �o a c o x
j� y c•�rri v'pd-6 ° 9 "•m a ��
pzd �W" C r o o oR
W� tFd�rW[p,7cn v � c �q,Ua= °"3 _' �,�r'Q 'c3 � °' �,4°, �3w �;oV � w.c�i ��.� [x] �.9 m a �,t•.;
V �!FW ~C y 0/ d W t.; O U g y 47 O C eJ C 'a V C 61 •' N C 5a C.� l� >_, cy ��' tai 0.�k
■"OpU� c= �� a° r� " ai c C �4 °a•o v o:w �3 'a d.° Re�'x N tlr' so
�a � s r-
-
avo
.. WU] ]r > 6.-
-E,, >w' W4 �a.� C o 0 oN 3roCj 7 a�Ut ° Q u a C'�w c a �oN
y° av ° c �z °- v o eL7�
C
W UAv) m d� 3 oa�Wrna
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY An City of h;
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TO: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator
Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator
Mark Peterson, Interim Fire & Emergency Services Administrator
Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator
FROM: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
MEETING DATE: Monday, March 22, 2010
TIME: 3:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620
THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA
Walmart Expansion (Timmons)
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Location: 743 Rainier Avenue S. Description: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan
Review and Environmental (SFPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail
facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for
the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a
reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately
located along the northern facade with modifications to the eastern facade. The proposal includes the
re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the parking to the north. The
expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the
parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in
addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is
approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM)
zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D, Access for the proposal would
continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S/SR 167, Hardie Ave 5
and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
cc: D. Law, Mayor
J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
S. Dale Estey, CED Director 11
W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal
Transportation Director
C. Vincent, CED Planning Director
N. Watts, Development Services Director
L. Warren, City Attorney
F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal
J. Medzegian, Council
0
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
0
of
.F
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
FRC MEETING DATE:
March 22, 2010
Project Name:
Walmart Expansion
Owner:
Peter Bonnell; Bonnell Family, LLC; 10047 Main Street #509; Bellevue, WA 98004
Applicant/Contact:
Jeff Chambers; Pacland; 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste# 305; Seattle, WA 98109
File Number:
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Project Manager:
Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner
Project Summary:
The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental
(SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail
facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional
9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000
square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in
the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along
the northern facade with modifications to the eastern facade. The proposal
includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the
parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls
resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the
applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition
to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The
site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial
(CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within
Urban Design District D. Access for the proposal would continue to be provided
via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S/SR 167, Hardie Ave S and
S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
Project Location:
743 Rainier Ave 5 Site Area: 594,553 SF (13.6 ac)
STAFF
Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a
RECOMMENDATION:
Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M).
Project Location Map
FRC Report - Walmart Expansion. doc
City of Renton Department of Community Economic Development En nmental Review Committee Report
WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -N
Report of March 22, 2010 Page 2 of 6
PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND
The applicant, PACLAND, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the future construction of additions to the
Renton Walmart retail store. The expansion would increase the existing building by approximately 16,000 square
feet and decrease the existing garden center by approximately 4,000 square feet. The additions would be located
on the northern and eastern elevations and would create the opportunity to remodel the interior of the existing
store. The existing Walmart consists of an approximately 134,000 square foot building and a 9,000 square foot
Garden Center. The proposal also includes an expansion of the surface parking lot, along with additional
landscaping and improvements to drainage on-site as well as new fagade treatments along the northern elevation.
in addition to the Environmental Review, Site Plan Review before the Hearing Examiner has also been requested.
The subject property is located on the west side of Rainier Ave S/SR 167 between SW 7th St and S Grady Way. A
recently approved Short Plat (LUA09-158) increased the size of the project parcel from 9.9 acres to 13.6 acres. As
part of the short plat the applicant is proposing the demolition of the restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales,
currently sited on the north portion of the parcel. The property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium
industrial (IM) and located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) and Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use
designations.
The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, 745 surface parking stalls and a 4,701
square -foot Garden Center. The proposed project area is predominately paved surfaces with areas of gravel just
north of the existing store location. The amount of impervious area would be increased by the proposal from
515,257 square feet to 528,863 square feet. New landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and
within the surface parking lots. Some excavation of existing soil would be necessary for the areas of proposed
expansions. The volume of the cut would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards and 9,500 cubic yards would be
brought in for fill to be balanced onsite.
Access would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, 5
Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The proposed building would result in a lot coverage of 25.3 percent. The
tallest point of the proposed additions would be the top of the parapet on the proposed trespa panel fagade
treatment at the center of the eastern facade; which would have a height of 32 feet and 4 inches from existing
grade. The proposed expansion, on the northern facade, would have a height of 21 feet and 4 inches at the tallest
point as measured from existing grade which matches the top of the existing parapet.
The applicant has requested an administrative modification in order to downsize the refuse and recycle area from
the required 2,325 square feet to 30 cubic yards, as they are proposing the use of a self contained compactor which
has been engineered for high volume usage. Staff has reviewed the request and issued a decision on the
modification along with the SEPA Determination below in order to run the appeal periods concurrently (Exhibit 7).
There are 99 trees located onsite of which 15 are proposed for removal. There are no known critical areas on or
near the site.
PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project
impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations.
A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials:
Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -clay Appeal Period.
B. Mitigation Measures
1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared
by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009.
ERG Report - Walmort Expansion
City of Renton Department of CommunityEconomic Development
WALMART EXPANSION
Report of March 22, 2010
Review Committee Report
LUA30-009, ECF, SA -H
Page 3 of 6
2. The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February
5, 2010, during project construction.
3. If pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration
study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City also reserves
the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven.
4. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the
applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the
requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work shall
recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
S. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior
to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00.
6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52
per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00.
C. Exhibits
Exhibit 1
Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map
Exhibit 2
Site Plan
Exhibit 3
Landscape Plan
Exhibit 4:
North and South Elevations
Exhibit 5:
East and West Elevations
Exhibit 6:
Aerial Photo of Project Site
Exhibit 7:
Refuse and Recycle Modification Approval
D. Environmental Impacts
The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the
applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction
with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the fallowing
probable impacts:
1. Earth
Impacts: The site is nearly level with average slopes at approximately 3 percent. The steepest slope on site
is located in a landscape area and is approximately 20 percent. The site consists of native fine-grained soils
which are generally soft to soft to medium stiff and compressible, and native granular soils which range
from loose to very dense. Grading on the project site would be minimal and limited to the north and east
sides of the existing store. Earthwork quantities would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards of fill and 9,500
cubic yards of haul -out. Following development impervious surface coverage will be approximately 89%.
A Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009, was submitted with the
project application. The recommendations in the report are based on an examination of material that
occurred in two phases. The preliminary subsurface evaluation consisted of 12 borings and the final
evaluation consisted of 40 borings. All borings ranged in depth from 11 % feet to 54 feet below existing site
grades.
The report includes design recommendations for site preparation and grading, excavation, foundation
support, stab -on -grade floors, drainage and pavements. The applicant is proposing to comply with the
recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. In
order to limit impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends, as a mitigation
measure, that project construction comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report
prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009.
ERC Report - Walmort Expansion
City of Renton Department of Community
WALMART EXPANSION i
Report of March 22, 2010
Development
5
mmental Review Committee Report
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -N
Page 4 of 6
Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the
geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009.
Nexus: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-4-060; SEPA Environmental Regulations
2. Water
a. Storm Water
Impacts: The project site is located within the Black River drainage basin of the Duwamish-Green River
Drainage watershed. The applicant submitted a "Technical Information Report," prepared by PACLAND.
(dated February 5, 2010) as part of the application materials. The applicant is proposing the removal of
29,700 square foot gravel commercial pad located just north of the existing structure. It would be
replaced with the expansion of store, surface parking stalls, new landscaped areas and a new bioswale.
The existing parking area would not be significantly modified from its existing layout, but would include
an overlay and minimal landscape island relocations. According to the Drainage Report, the increase in
impervious area would he 14,544 square feet; from 514,319 to 528,863 square feet.
Existing stormwater runoff from the site flows towards multiple existing catch basins where it is collected
and discharged to the existing stormwater conveyance system. The water flows to an existing
biofiltration swale located in the northwestern portion of the site which was designed to treat the
existing parking lot areas. The bioswale provides treatment prior to the runoff being discharged to the
existing storm system in SW 7th Street.
As stated in the Technical Information Report, the proposed project improvements generate a 0.035 cfs
increase in the 100 -year peak flow rate. Because the post -developed peak flow is less than 0.5 cfs more
than the existing peak flow, the project is exempt from flow control requirements. Any offsite runoff that
currently flows onsite will continue to be conveyed via the existing storm system. The proposed
conveyance system has been designed to convey runoff for the new impervious surfaces. Additional
water quality treatment, in the form of a new bioswale is proposed, as the project would add more than
5,000 square feet of new pollution generating impervious surfaces.
The applicant is proposing to comply with the recommendations found in the Technical Information
Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 for both drainage and erosion control. In order to
limit drainage and erosion impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends the
applicant comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010
during project construction.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by
PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 during project construction.
Nexus: King County Surface Water Design Manual; SEPA Environmental Regulations
3. Environmental Health
a. Noise
Impacts: The Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009,
recommended the use of augercast piles in order to support the structure's foundation. In lieu of augercast
pile, the study indicates that the applicant could use small -diameter steel pipe piles in order to support the
structure. Noise and vibration impacts can be associated with pipe pile driving. Therefore staff
recommends, as a mitigation measure, if pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant
would be required to provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the day and hours of construction when
pipe piles are being driven.
Mitigation Measures: If the applicant uses pipe piles in order to support the proposed structure the
applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
ERC Report - Walmort Expansion
City of Renton Department of Comm unityEconomic Development
WALMART EXPAN51ON
Report of March 22, 2010
En
Review Committee Report
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Page 5 of 6
permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles
are being driven.
Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations
4. Historic and Cultural Preservation
Impacts: It is possible that archaeological artifacts or a historic site could be encountered during project
construction. This is due to the site's proximity to former archaeological discoveries. Should evidence of a
historic site be found during site development, work shall immediately cease and the Washington State of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation shall be contacted at (360) 586-3065. A survey shall be submitted
that conforms to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved
archaeologist.
In the event that cultural artifacts are found, work cannot recommence until approval is received from the
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Mitigation Measures: Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be
stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall
conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work
shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations
S. Transportation
Impacts: Access for the site would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts
along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. There are three full access points
along SW 71h St a full access along Hardie Ave SW; a right in/right out access point along Rainier Ave S/SR
167; and a full access point along SW Grady Way.
ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated by the Development Services Division and shall be
in compliance with ADA standards when construction occurs on the site. No other street improvements
would be required for the proposal.
It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system and is
anticipated to generate 608 additional daily trips. A Transportation Impact Study, prepared by the Transpo
Group (dated October 2009), was submitted by the applicant and was approved by the Development
Services Division. The traffic study supported the estimate for 608 additional daily trips. In order to mitigate
transportation impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure be placed on the project requiring a
Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The
fee, at $75 per trip for the 608 new daily trips anticipated, has been estimated -at $45,600.00 (608 trips x
75.00 = $45,600.00). This fee would be payable prior to issuance of the building permit.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new
net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00.
Nexus: Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution 3100; Ordinance 4489; SEPA Environmental Regulations
6. Fire & Police
Impacts: The Fire Prevention Bureau and the Police Department have indicated they have the ability to
provide service to the project provided required improvements are made and a Fire Impact Fee is assessed.
The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit.
The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00.
Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution 2895; SEPA Environmental Regulations
FRC Report - Walmort Expansion
City of Renton Deportment of Community Economic Development Environ petal Review Committee Report
WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Report of March 22, 2410 Page 6 of 6
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their
comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant."
V Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report.
Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 PM, April 1£, 2010.
Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing
at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be
obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057.
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action.
Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions.
Planning:
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Division,
Water:
1. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is based on the size of water meter needed to service the development.
The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or
utility permit.
2. The existing fire hydrants may need to be fitted with Stortz fittings to bring them up to current City code.
Sanitary Sewer:
1. The Wastewater System Development Charge is also based on the size of water meter needed to service the
development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a
construction or utility permit.
Surface Water:
1. The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area.
Minimums may apply, and this fee is payable with a construction or utility permit.
Transportation:
1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip, as calculated by the ITE manual. Fees are due
with the building permit for all commercial structures. A traffic study supporting 648 daily trips was submitted.
2. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated and in compliance when construction occurs on the site.
Miscellaneous:
1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for
approval prior to any permit being issued.
2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow
devices will be required..
3. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.
4. A construction permit is required for any utility work. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two
copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application, and an appropriate fee shall be submitted to the
City Hall sixth floor counter.
ERC Report - Walmart Exponsion.doc
F3 - 18 T23N R5E W 112
LA -
IM
m7h
a
__ lM
fM
CA
CA CA
CA
Im CA
CA CA
� !M z„� CA
fM IM h m
CO !M
aa fM
Z CO fM 1M fryl 1M
Lsw,sn s¢ aw ian a�
v
N
1
N
�i fM
CO A
A
Co I
CO
Co
5
CA
CA
CA
47
CA
[Kii
W
N
IL
L
...
..............
R-8
H3 - 30 T23N R5E W 112 ��
EXHIBIT 1 . 1-1
0 200 4[30
ty�f Feet 19 T23N R5E W 112
� �
�. relr : 1:4,800
5319
954 TE-
ZONING MAP BOOK
74 92 93'- 455 j f 456 459 461B6
B 1B r
k � 14
� I
26 T24N R4E 25 T2 $pT N R5E } T2 N wczw a
�9 4 R5 28 T24N R5E 27.124N R5E r 26 T24N R5E
81 .455W i#5 458_
t•��h , 460, 464
C 2 Al -
_ - 4 -
DC7
35 72414 R4E . , 36 T24N R4E i. A5E E_
J — 35 T24N R5E
3 1 f �� 307 .0 W -N8 309- 0 -
-3
01
:ILI `
r 2 _77
Lam_'_
7
2123NNJ'AEr 4£ , _
S T23N R5E T23N R!it"� 4 T23N R5E: 3.T23N R5E' 2 T23N R5E
-i 31,E 3. - 319 369 -
805
3-
E4 I' Sr - -
1.T N R4E 12 T23N R4E �_ 7231V R5E I'
t 3 R5E 95231 RSEr a: 1D T23N RSE ai T N R5E
32 :' a -- 326 , 327 I i 370
F3'F4 F5 -_
14T23N,R4E .r �'-T23N.,dE - l.'.1 \
3 R 18 T23N R5E y7 T23 A5E 16 T23N R5E 1 T23N RBE '14 T23N y�
3 �Y �335� 336 33?= i 371 8151, g 16
T2 IN R4�-
�G4_
3 24T2A R4E 19 T23N R5E' r! ` :20.T23N R5E ,� 21 T23N R5E 22 T23 R5E- 23 T23N 29
44 6D0, 6 02 = 820 821
1J -H,11 2 H� _ H5 ___
'
T23N R4E T23N R5E, 25 T23N R4E _ 29 T29N`A5E= 28 T23N R5E _V T29N A5E 26 T23N R5E
25
0 J_ �351i 603` -604 605 ' 825:826 8
_.. --- _
_16
17
1Z, ]4
36 T23N 114E 31 T23 R5E 32-723N R5E 33 T23N R
34 T23N R5E 35 T23N R5E 36
6fl7 608 610 .632$33
L�
22N R4E- - �
1 T22N 1;4E I 6 T22N R5E-i }� II 5722� Fl5E 4 T22N R5E i 3 T22N R$f p T22N R5E 11 T
21
RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE CENTERS INDUSTRIAL
ke (RC) Resource Conservation c ✓ (CV) Center Village
i� (IL) Industrial -Light
C (R-1) Residential 1 du/ac (UC -N1) Urban Center - North 1 =-m (IM) Industrial - Medium
(R-4) Residential 4 du/ac tc r (UC -N2) Urban Center - North 2 7—iL—] {IH) Industrial - Heavy
P -s (R -B) Residential 8 du/ac co [CD) Center Downtown
_FH H (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes
e - tR-10) Residential 10du/ac COMMERCIAL
=.-ka (R-14)Residential 14du/ac --- Penton City Limitu
Rn -F
(RM -F) Residential Multi -Family coR (COR) COmmerclaVOfflce/Residential
-•- Adjacent Cite Limits
R (RM -T) Residential Multi -Family traditional c4 (CA) Commercial Arterial
Rn -u (RM -U) Residential Multi -Family Urban Center co (CO) Commercial Office KROLL PAGE
[Tc N7 (CN) Commercial Neighborhood PAGE#INDEX
IM1Is rnaC Is Ix 05-1ay purposes Orly.
SECTfIOWN/RANGE
i 0I
1211 jig -jig
w 1'�.! mult
CC lumn
ggg� l 111 o
a nis g �� ' 8 Noll �� �i �� � 1$ � 5111
r Hill
xyl c py pp,ilt IX Of Ili�� "; � � ���I.R16.
X 4 RHR III 4 TANII�X���
Vol ' � �e � `�
1x11 'vfit
Xx� 61� a� oII
It I
tl w
lip
Mill [I
OO OO OODpp000 OOOC�a000000©000®® ®®t$m CLVill i°+
It- ----- ; -
i K
g
�s�sas�
J
CO
Q
n
rn
�— el
�. � s
F>
ySee
= s
Im
-,ZL 6 - olm's; 9°1 w R , Wa,
Z
0
Z
\I XLO Z
Q
9Q
_ co
w
0
U)
d
STI
H
x
W
cn
C o
(L C) ao
W
FI 17 p
u-
0
O
a
m
LU
w
z
0
z
LV
Ln
0
H ".
►r
9s O
7
d
W
C
0
Lt
0
ca
N N
yid
LM
m
E
-� S2
a
3 © �
oQ
nennn nn
�uul
C
w
ti
nnn
�uul
9s O
7
d
W
C
0
Lt
0
ca
N N
yid
LM
m
E
Denis I aw
�lTy 01
Mayor �
B
r r i e I -,
.•
■moi ` \ T
Department of Communityand Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 7
Usunobun Osaigie
Larry D. Craighead
211 N. Record St, Ste 222
Dallas, TX 75202
Subject: Walmart Expansion Modification Request
743 Rainier Ave 5
File No. LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF
Dear Mr. Maison:
This letter is sent in response to your March 4, 2010 request for modifications from the City's Refuse
and Recyclables regulations (RMC 4-4-090). The request was included as part of the land use application
for the expansion of the Renton Walmart location.
Summa of Reguest
The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of
retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing
16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden
Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade. with
modifications along the eastern facade. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface
parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking
stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is
proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing
restaurant formerly known as Silly McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located
within the Commercial Arterial (CA)'and Medium Industrial.(IM) zoning designations and is also located
within. Urban Design District D. Access would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW
7th Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot.area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for
refuse deposits. An administrative modification has been requested in: order to reduce the refuse
deposit area from 1,502 square feet to 30 cubic yards.
Section 4-4-090.F allows -the Administrator to grant modifications from the refuse and recyclable
standards for individual cases, provided the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC
4-9-250.D.2):
a.- Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection
and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering
judgment; and
b. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; and
Renton City Hall a 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. 0 rentonwa.gov
0 9
C. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and
Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
Backeround
The applicant, Larry D. Craighead Architects, has requested a modification from the City's Refuse and
Recyclable Standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) in order to reduce the size of the required refuse deposit area.
Retail developments, require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross
floor area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10.square feet per 1,000 square feet of
building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot.area
for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. The code applies in this instance
due to the proposed expansions of the facility which would require a 751 square foot deposit area for
recyclables (751 SF = 5 x 155,244/1,000 SF) and a 1,502 square foot deposit area for refuse (1,502 = 10 x
[155,244/1,000 SF)). The proposed recyclable deposit area complies with Renton Municipal Code.
However, the proposed refuse deposit area is less than the minimum required. Therefore, a
modification request has been made on behalf of Walmart.
Analysis
a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and
maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment.
if approved, the size of the refuse deposit area would be a reduction from the 1,502 square feet
required to a 30 cubic yard area. The applicant contends that a reduction in the required size of
the refuse deposit area is appropriate due to the use of a compacter which has been engineered
for high volume usage. The applicant contends the self contained compactor would reduce
refuse pickup while eliminating fluid seepage and minimizing odors thus meeting the objectives
of the refuse and recyclable standards.
Staff concurs the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the refuse and
recyclable standards by providing adequate refuse deposit areas in the amount necessary for
the Walmart.
b) Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
The applicant contends the proposed. refuse deposit area and use of the self contained
compactor would be adequate for the expanded facility. Staff concurs, the proposed refuse and
recyclable deposit areas would provide adequate space to handle the needs for the existing and
proposed facility. It is not anticipated that the approval.of a modification to permit a 30 cubic
yard compact refuse deposit area, as opposed to 1,502 square foot conventional space, would
be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
C) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code.
See discussion under criterion "a)" above.
d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended.
The refuse and recyclable standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) require a minimum of 10 square feet per
1,000 square feet of building gross floor area be provided for refuse deposit areas. The
applicant contends and staff concurs; that based upon the use of a compactor, which has been
engineered for high volume usage, it is anticipated the reduction of the required deposit areas is
considered to be reasonable.
0
0
e) Will: not create adverse impacts to other property(les) in the vicinity.
As stated under criterion "a)" & "b)", the proposed reduction of the refuse deposit area should
not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity of the retail store.
Decision
The refuse and recyclable deposit area modification for the Walmart Expansion is hereby approved.
AARpeal Process: Appeals of this administrative decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.
April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, with:
Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057: Appeals to the Examiner
are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code. Section 4-8-110.6. Additional information regarding the
appeal process. may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
If you have questions regarding this decision feel free to contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner,.at
(425) 430-7219.
Sincerely,
c-�
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director Date.
Planning Division
cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager
Parties of Record
Yellow File
City of on Department of Community & Economic 6opment
ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:AM!, 0 U_
COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 8, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
DATE CIRCULATED: F Y 2 ,.2010
APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND
PLANNER e Timmons
PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion
PLAN R yren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 13.6 acres
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet
LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue 5
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an
additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail
space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the
northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing
surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a
total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian
pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales_ The site area is approximately
13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located
within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th
Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way.. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth
Air
water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Noturol Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Li htfGlare
Recreation
utilities
Trans ortotion
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
We have reviewed this application with part' far attention to those areas in which ave expertise and hove identified areas of probable impact
or areas where additional information ire e to properly assess this pro
Signature of Director or Authorized Re
Date
04/08/2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter in support of the proposed expansion of Wal-Mart in
Renton. I am very honored to have been the store manager at this store for the last 7
years. In that time I have seen a vast transformation in our community and our store. i
have worked at stores in 5 different states for Wal-Mart, and have never encountered a
group of associates as dedicated to the success of this store as the ones I have here.
We have strived, specifically in the last few years, to be active members of the
community. We have supported over 20 different community organizations in the last
year with merchandise or monetary donations. I am active in the Chamber of Conunerce,
a board member of the First Tee of Greater Seattle, and a member of the Renton 21 Club.
I attend many community events throughout the year, and we are sponsors of Renton
River Days, Business in Excellence Awards, and the Chamber Holiday Auction as well.
I would ask that serious consideration is given to our proposed expansion. It is
the right time for this community to receive a brand new, updated one stop shopping
experience. Our mission at Wal-Mart is to "Save People Money, So They Can Live
Better", and this expansion would do exactly that for our customers by reducing the
amount of money they spend on groceries for themselves and their families.
I look forward to managing the new Wal-Mart Supercenter, adding approximately
80 new jobs, and being an even more active participant in the community in the future.
Sincerely,
J
J emy Smith
Manager
Wal-Mart 42516
Renton, WA
(425)227-0407
iksmith_s02516.Us(ii.wal-martxom
City of Renton
Plashing Division
In� - �� 1 10
I am writing this letter to support our store expansion, this will benefit the community with more job
opportunities so we can help our customers " Save Money So They Can Live Setter " I have been with this
company for 9 years, so this would be a great success for this community of Renton.
City of Renton
Pia nning Division
To whom it may concern,
4/09/2010
Hi, my name is Sharon Ajibade and I'm the Assistant Manager here at the Renton Walmart. I truly want
to support our store expansion to a Supercenter to help provide more job opportunity for this
community. Making this store in to a Supercenter will positively impact our mission on saving our
customer money and help them live better. I shopped here at this store because of the great low prices
that Walmart is committed to. As a customer, this will help me get all my groceries all in one stop and
not have to drive down to the Federal Way Supercenter to buy my produces for my family and 1. 1 love
this store because I know that this store does a lot of donation to the community and this community
deserve to see the future Supercenter in Renton. Thank you for your consideration and time to read this
letter.
Sincerely,
Assistant Manager Sharon Ajibade
743 Rainier Ave S.
Renton, Wa. 98057
City of Renton
PlaIininq Division
ED
To whom it may concern,
4/08/2010
Hi, my name is Huy Tran and I'm the Assistant Manager here at the Renton Walmart. I truly want to
support our store expansion to a Supercenter to help provide more job opportunity for this community.
Making this store in to a Supercenter will positively impact our mission on saving our customer money
and help them live better. I shopped here at this store because of the great low prices that Walmart is
committed to. As a customer, this will help me get all my groceries all in one stop and not have to drive
down to the Federal Way Supercenter to buy my produces for my family and I. 1 love this store because I
know that this store does a lot of donation to the community and this community deserve to see the
future Supercenter in Renton. Thank you for your consideration and time to read this letter.
Sincerely,
r'
Assistant Manager Huy Tran
743 Rainier Ave S.
Renton, Wa 98057
City of Renton
Planning Division
HIECEM:J
Xdc�7
� U-75-h,;If- Z -A
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter to support our store
expansion. I am very happy to be part of this store
and work for Wal-Mart. I truly believe this will be a
positive step for our community. Customers and
employees as a worker point of view this will be
great place to shop and to work.
Anapogi Toleafoa
I.C.S Unloader
City of Renton
Olarining Division
1 HEC(_ E[E 'SIE®
Jeremy Smith - jksmith.02516
From: Sophorn Chan - schan.s02516 Sent: Thu 4/8/2010 4:59 PM
To: Jeremy Smith - jksmith.s02516
Cc:
Subject: support letter
Attachments:
My name is Sophorn Chan. I am an associate here at Renton Wal-Mart and I support the
expansion of our store- I started out as a cashier to help pay for school and dial not
intend to stay long but I am going on my tenth year as a Wal-Mart associate and is very
proud to be one. In my 9 plus years I've been experimenting a multitude of career
opportunities and yet have not been in every department in the store. I am currently
a Fashion Zone Supervisor and also in charge of community involvement, working with non-
profit organizations. The expansion will benefit not only the city of Renton but
surrounding communities as well, opening up career opportunities as well as providing
community relationships between merchants and the public. This store continues to teach
me the value of a family oriented work -place and our new Supercenter will offer those
same benefits to other's in our communities.
Thanks.
Sophorn ... }I(
City of Renton
P4anning Division
C [IVFE
To whom it may concern,
My name is Tilesa L. Swehla and I've been the department manager of Foods at the Renton Wal-
Mart for three years. I am writing you regarding our expansion into a Supercenter.
As I'm working everyday I come into contact with a lot of customers that would love if we were
able to expand to a full grocery store. Just today I talked to an older couple (the husband was SO and
the wife was 79) and they were telling me how much they've enjoyed our transition into an expanded
foods. The wife went on to say that they wished that we were a Supercenter because 'it would be
wonderful to have the convenience of doing all of the shopping in one location'. I can't even say how
many customers I come into contact with that express the exact same sentiments.
Also, I personally feel proud to be involved in a store that will not only add 100 jobs to the
community but will also positively impact the community financially. Not forgetting to mention how
we're pioneers in the sustainability movement! This would be a win/win situation for us and for the City
of Renton.
Thank you so much for your time!
Si erely,
l L i
esa L. Swehla
City of Renton
Planning Division
0 0
To whom it may concern,
Hello, my name is Traffaney and I'm the department manager of Electronics. I am writing
because I feel it's important that everyone knows how not only how much the community wants a
Supercenter but how much associates do too. I think that it would be a great idea to expand into a
Supercenter not only because it would add so many jobs but also because of how much money it would
pour into the economy of our community. I'm not only an employee of Walmart (for the past 11 years)
- I'm also a customer at Walmart and a resident in Renton. I can see how positively it would impact our
community and how convenient it would be for people to be able to shop here in Renton verses having
to go to Kent or Federal Way. Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely,
Traffaney Black
City of Renton
Planning Division
WECE V rc�[D)
0 0
April S, 2010
Dear City Hall,
My name is Brandi and I work as Automotive Department Manager at Renton Walmart
42516. Expanding the store to a super center would truly make this a one stop shopping
experience for a lot of customers as well as associates. I am also in support of creating
more jobs for the community.
Sincerely,
"-�' '�
Brandi Hansen
Automotive Department Manager
Qty of Renton
Planning Division
?.: :s .
0 0
April 8th, 2010
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in regards to the expansion of 'Walmart store #2516 into a Su
expansion because it offers more jobs for the community as well as creat
that already work for the company. It also gives the community, including
needs within the budget they set.
I hope you take these advantages into consideration when you make you
Tha you,
4
Sierra Schavrien
ICS Associate
Walmart # 2516
City of Renton
Planning Division
inOWCEWEDD
0
kl�loh
[Vql—Ak4 JS16
eq(- ct -k/ [� I I f
X17 G SJp�rCei�9Pr ; .-T
ah) �Vt
�ee�-ihq (VAOkvr�'
lom� qw �V go* -
City of Renton
Planning Division
April 8, 2010
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like that the Renton Wal-Mart will become a Super Center. It will
be good to the people in this community because it will help us save money.
It will also create jobs which will help many families.
Thank you,
Tomasita Quinsay
City of Renton
Piarnning Divisiall
' � r E 9'W
0 0
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter to support our store
expansion. I am very proud to be part of this store
and have worked for Wal-Mart for I I years. I truly
believe by expanding our store will create more jobs
opportunity for the community.
My goal as an associate is to make sure that we are
helping customers to save money so they can live
better. By expanding our store will help them
tremendously, by having low prices on our groceries.
There is a lot of good benefits that will come along
with our stores expansion. Hopefully Renton city
council will take our proposal into consideration.
Thank ,
Tauasi Paaga
H.R
City of Renton
Parming Divis#on
IR E
A�
'c h)
Z)
City of Renton
0 0
I would like to see the Renton Wal-Mart become a super center for several
reasons.
There will be more jobs added to our community.
We will be able to buy groceries here.
There will be more hours available for the employees that already work
here.
There will be advancement opportunities for the employees that work in this
facility.
City of Renton
Planning Division
IRC�C E.�VE, I~n)
Dear people of Renton,
Soon we are going to have a Wal-Mart Supercenter. This will be beneficial to the people
in our community, it can create jobs for more people and it will make Wal-Mart a bigger store. With the
Supercenter, we can have a bigger store and more products to sell. If we could have a Supercenter, our
customers can buy more for cheap, create jobs for more people, and keep our community happy.
Francis Canapi
City of Rentor
Planning Division
0
To Hearing Committee,
I am writing this letter to voice my opinion about a Super Center in the city of Renton.
I have been working for Wal -mart for 1 Iyrs now_ I have worked in a Super Center and a Div 1
Store. I like the fact that working for your Super Center you can get your whole meal after you get
off work. Having a Super Center in Renton Wal -mart we will also help the customer save money and live
better since they can do the one shop shopping and spend their money here in our Wal -mart instead of gas
going some place else. It would also create more jobs for our associates and our community. We will also
be able to donate more to our community.
Thank you,
Cheryl Harrelson
ZMS
City of Renton
Planning Division
l� C NED
•
LI
f
I—]
cil
COAC((11
tj r ('Ib lyles:5413e- 40 irtcopp�
CoGcdTCr Much 0 r c,a
.4-c Federal 4)ax
0cafly cn3QX n&4 46 how +c a e
�?a
Yoe(
l �I
City of Renton
Planning Division
To whom it may concern,
1 wanted to take the time to write a letter to the hearing committee to show how much we
as associates want to have our store expand to a Supercenter. Everyday 1 have at least 30 people
ask me if we have produce, meat and/or bakery so 1 think it's safe to say that it's also something
the community has been waiting for for a long time. We (as associates and a neighborhood)
would like the opportunity to shop locally — so we can save money and live better.
Sincerely,
Josh Smith
Dept. Manager of Pets/Chemicals/Paper Goods
City of Renton
Planning Divisior,
0 0
To Hearing Committee,
I am writing this letter to voice my opinion about a Super Center in the city of Renton.
I have been working for Wal -mart for I Oyrs now. I like the fact that working for a Super Center you can
get everything in one place and save time.
Having a Super Center in Renton Wal -mart we will also help the customer save money and live better
since they can do the one shop shopping and spend their money here in our Wal -mart. It would also create
more jobs for our associates and our community. We will also be able to donate more to our community.
Thank
Lev
Department manager
City of Renton
punning Division
0
To Hearing Committee,
I am writing this letter to voice my opinion about a Super Center in the city of Renton.
I have been working for Wal -mart for 9yrs now. I like the fact that working for a Super Center you can
get everything in one place and save time.
Having a Super Center in Renton Wal -mart we will also help the customer save money and live better
since they can do the one shop shopping and spend their money here in our Wal -mart. it would also create
more jobs for our associates and our community. We will also be able to donate more to our community.
i
i
"dank you,
Jo ie Merveus
Depattment manager
City of Denten
Planning Division
19EEa WPIECQ)
0 0
To Hearing Committee,
I am writing this letter to voice my opinion about a Super Center in the city of Menton. I know this city and
Community will benefit by having a great place to shop and save money. This Super Center will create
many j obs also. It will bring many people in the city. I am very excited about having this Facility.
Thanks
Dept. Manager
Abram Sparrow
12 Years of dedicated service to the customers that shop in Renton Wal-Mart.
City of Renton
Planning Divis4on
I ft�C [I�J\yl )
To whom it may concern.
I am writing this letter to support our store
expansion. I am very happy to be part of this store
and work for Wal-Mart. I truly believe this will be a
positive step for our community. Customers and
employees as a worker point of view this will be
great place to shop and to work.
Valerie Reyes
I.C.S lead supervisor 2nd shift
City of Renton
Planning Division
[RI iL�C E I] \W FF [D3
CRY of Renton
Planning Division
IRECER/E[l))
To whom it may concern,
My name is Irish Joy E. Layador and I have been working for Walmart for 5 years. I believe that
the expansion for our store is a very important thing for the community. I fully support and encourage
our store to be a Supercenter. It will open more opportunities for our community, associates and
customers. Having the expansion will create an environment where everyone can be successful and it
will truly show that we listen to our customers and employees on things that matters most to them and
what they care about. We can show them that they are valuable and we can fulfill our number one motto;
Good customer service so we can "Save Money and Live Better".
Thank you for your consideration.
Entertainm t �ne Merchandise Supervisor
Renton, alm #2516
City of Renton
Planning Division
Cl
U)
U)
LU
Q
J_
Q
LU
11-1
w
m
Z
W
Z
a
CL
w
J
w
CL
0
U \.
CL
U �?S
u
w
LU
U
U)
L
LU
o
Q
L1
C
4
y
#
s
v
E EP
Ln
°° E
c= CD (n
Co
Q O
C U
V
C�
¢��oE
"D�
a� U)
•�
�� s 0
0
D N S6
CL
J .
77� •-
r
■ �
D w=
�Q5,00
L
00
-1-+
CLo
Q
p (n
L C
/��
V
o , O
cL
M C
C:
(<D ' U
CLQDC?N
+_+
o '3
c �
�.x c
>
D�O-
��
73
4
_e a)
D E
Q N a O
0
� m c
.,�
m-a�a
O
0-01— . 0
5
c
aQ
C 7 O
.y
O- 0 >
O
CD
.�
(1) cS3 -O
U)
U)
LU
Q
J_
Q
LU
11-1
w
m
Z
W
Z
a
CL
w
J
w
CL
0
U \.
CL
U �?S
u
w
LU
U
U)
L
LU
o
Q
L1
C
4
y
#
s
v
0
c
o
•Q
CU :t-- E
Es
D O .
C 4a
O O E
L W
C: } 0
CL
C: CLU O
N U 0 T
< cL E
ai U Lo
c
.� m
C N
CO O -Q O
M1� p•U—
Q N Q O
°p
CL Ql i
Q� 4- CZC
O N O
} — CL C
0
S
O . �>>=
},
O
Q)n�io0o
0 o�� E
o Q) O
CL Ow
U
C (D 3
21 CL CO Z
Q� >>^�k
c L Q .y
0 CL W
0
-0p L �U i r
C U m N U
:3 L U A ,a
Q) c ca O
M E O.
N N U H
c > E O
o
Cl CL) a>i 0
UJ [� -0 m
0
W
U
w
�
Cr
3
Q
_
❑
w
Q
J_
Q
,
i
LU
co
z
w
z
0O
.
CL
w
r
w
.J
r
w
❑
o
CL
w
�
Cl)
LLJ
3
Q
_
e .
w
z
U)
U)
LLI
—J
cr
LLJ
COz
LLI
Z
0
CL
LLI
—i
LIJ
w
0
0
a_
Fj
Q)
w
w
U)
U)
U)
w
Q
I
Ile
NZI
QJ
0 -r-
co F
0)
4L
IS
.2 0 E
C: Q) O :t�
CL u
C: 0
C,
> (D C-- (a
<
0---
v_"2
U) cn
ca
m o
CL
0
0
>, E
co < 0 0
V- W C o
CL
0 Q
I
r
cu 0
0
0 E �7
CL,C—>%
C;) 4�:
C L (D
o
*
L
>,T
> T<
a) (3) O -c 0
7:3
E
cO E
-0 ,
c 0 0 0
0 a) -11
Q-- cc)
c L 3) (1) 0
m
C L 10
x >
2
0 CL c
0
0) 4�
0
_0 -0
C)
LE
0
E
LCL
Q) :3
0
> E
r
--C,
M 0
CL Q) >
0
D =f (1)
m
U) m-0
m
U)
U)
LLI
—J
cr
LLJ
COz
LLI
Z
0
CL
LLI
—i
LIJ
w
0
0
a_
Fj
Q)
w
w
U)
U)
U)
w
Q
I
Ile
NZI
QJ
v_"2
I
r
L
0
U)
w
D' I
LU
co
LU
Z
0
T,
CL
w
I
LU
0
CL
0 E
= 6-
V)
w
0
0
C:
-.E
Fj
o
;�U)
cLO
ur,
LU
uj
CL
U)
U)
0
C: C
VI
QO (1) c
0
0 w
L- ,
CL
'4-
ai
i
o
4,- CL
r- (n
O.S
-F
D
> a
(1) (1) 0-0 0
Cl)
_0 C:
0
cc E
c 0 0 0
0Q
E
-0 00 a)
Z)
c W C
0� C
x W
> C: 0 > m
"
0
0 0-
0 _0 0
Q) ;o cis
_0 -C -0 U =
A-
c 0 Co 0
0
cu 4-7 E
C:
U) Q
W
> E 0
0-
o
CL-
CL >
0
0
:3 :tf (D
U) m -0
U)
w
D' I
LU
co
LU
Z
0
T,
CL
w
I
LU
LU
0
w
0
0
Fj
ur,
LU
uj
I --
U)
U)
U)
w
0
<C)
LU
0
_ 0
w
r. L _
D �-
c/i
o a
a�
CL
co
m
E
n �
iW
f
O
C
E� E
0 0
0 cr
o
O re
O E
C= G7W++
-C Q U
O L C
c C- ca O
N L N
< SL E
Q3 (n
Cry � 00 .�
�QQ)oo
�a '0o
O --
CL D
w- m c, c>
0E�,
— CL
t
O
O a7 O -O O
0- yQ)
y/�.-•+� /off, LL ^ E
V W O 0 O
O-� Q)U
m
CL
N > O .Q
C 0
C OU C
O
(D � -0 fG
C Q
Q) N .0
U) m -O
0
Cf)
CO
W
❑
Q
W
J
D
I
E
4;
r,
r-
a -'d
I
+
r
rte,
r
I
4;
r,
r-
a -'d
I
r. L r
0
C
i CL
Cl)
o
E
ui ca
o
C
O. 2
Ec— � E
cn O
c
OE o
° ; ° E
a)
c 0 a r
Q U O
W 05as U
a)L( �.
Qom--oE
L = N —
•a) u) 71
� c
o ° c�
E a
:01 U U
co Q N 0 O
� OU 4
p us +- d
a ,Co
� C
U U 40-
0 E Q)
E N
Qy N
N X O
cCUC
5 oc E u:), E
f O
Qa�
" (D _
N
O
C
x'
4- >
Og
L)
. U L6 UJ W
O) c O
E LCL
+• m N cn N
�a) Q>
o y
O
o c
co17A
w
❑
w
U,
m
z
w
z
O
a
w
w
LU
O
C)
EL
N
U
LU
w
U)
U)
LU
x
❑
a
w
Q
z
0
�s c
C O
Q c�
rA O
O = Q .
c L�� CD
-0O E
C=amuC+.
Q) C?
C 4) OCl
!-
C Q O
N 2 w � A
ca
Q0-.-oE
c
C: N
boQ)
c a -0.
r Q U v=
mQa)oo
°o
CL
O
Z3C
d E w � O
QzmN `+L+
O C
0
a� (D
_0 -2C
(D_C Q)
O E
O Q) Q 4-
CL
CL
Q) d
!, QC G37
n X > >
C 0
O N ' d
C g-
�m>Eo:
�Q) w-- 0-�-
o
N 7 O
U) Co -0 0
Cl)
w
❑
Q
J_
Q
LU
W
m
Z
W
z
O
T-
CL
LU
J
w
W
0
U
d
N
H
U
W
W
U)
U)
U)
W
❑
Q
W
Q
Z
Flit
9
rl
It;�
i
J
1
i�
�I
C r.
_
a.�
Q
LM
Al
rrr. CL
U)
a
E
0
d
� Y
C6 Q__=
E t `
A w S 0
2 7- C
E'
� O
°CD3
o•L�o�
c m c Y
(3)
D "N
Q v O
Q7 U 0 � A
> Q) 1=
Q
Z)
ffiM0(D
EoQ�
ti a •�
�Q oo
CL
p cn — N
ro
L) o
oEvL-
C E_
Q) Q} La
0
a)0 To
o c.-, Q
2-
(D N p
75 x ;
0
U)
Ln --
E
o
Q�
0 X-
z
0
zLU
CL
0
5
'A
<
T-
a.
LU
MO
S�
LU
A
0
CL
5, E 0
0
oc c
0
0
0
a
o 'n
L = 'R
(3)
CCU:
, m t L) —0
u
0
W
CIL)
CL
CO, -
>
U)
-(D O -0.0
CCc
cc
Lo E
'-UY 2,2
'
o-
-E
LLJ
0
CL 7@
5, >0
0 t
L) :5
/}'oat
2 �E (r) 0
cc
m E CL
OO (D(D = T
> E 0
0--0
(D > 0
±-- (D
ilk m -0
U)
Ln --
E
Q�
z
zLU
Cv
0
T-
a.
LU
LU
cr—
W
CIL)
F—
LLJ
LL)
CO
Cl)
ui
cl�
rr� r
o
O ■�
VI :�
r.
^�
CL
V
rrrrrl E
n rrrrr
E
05 c
S O
Q
O ._ E
2
L S
O r O ._
t� Q1
.—
c:
C C LEy 0)
QO E
C 0 O +' oc
Q O
C11
U) D
(6 Q N
O
U i3
�
0:3 �
Q N O
L cm _
� �
Q_ 0 y N r -
Q in—+41
^U^,, CJ
0 0
Q � W �H
L Y!
ECL
Al L
O L
a
O 0 E
O N O .Q +o
CL U O
:3 x > >
(D Q
0-
Q —
C U m to
)
_ L
L Q
aS m N
> E O
(D} a>-
CU QCL
+
m ,Q
[� c� -0 ca
0 0
C)
U)
w
❑
Q
¢
J
Q
w
a
W
z
W
z
O
a.
w
J
w
F
W
❑
/O
L)
LL
N
}
F_
U
1--
w
LU
lyF
U)
U)
U)
w
w
z
` _
6!
J
r
.,v
CI
vj
Ile
J
ril
N.
CI
vj
CL
a
0
Ma
,03
a
r�
W
L
CL
U)
r.
cc
0
C
C) 0
Q LG
Ems#= E
'E3 '2'
c•L�4- Qs
C�,
0 N
Q
C N 0 :.,
C: U O
w 5 Q3 U
m`LnE�
Qom•-oE
�(� S
c,o
C U1
CO O --o. (4
v
O'
Q (D 0 O
01 Cc ro
�%i�v
0 Q
�gc�
U U O
0 E Q) `�
Q) �U
CL �+
0
D 0 o
o�� E
0 Q) O 0
CL W a) 3 ,E
X
a�co
oo
C 'U U) Qi
ai �Eo'�
Z- 0-
L0 +r
rrOn� Q) > O
Vi
c c
U)
U)
w
Q.`
a
w
W
m
z
w
z
0
T-
a_
LU
J
W
H
^-:7
'{
+
�.
W
7
�
a
CL
a
0
Ma
,03
a
r�
W
L
CL
U)
r.
cc
0
C
C) 0
Q LG
Ems#= E
'E3 '2'
c•L�4- Qs
C�,
0 N
Q
C N 0 :.,
C: U O
w 5 Q3 U
m`LnE�
Qom•-oE
�(� S
c,o
C U1
CO O --o. (4
v
O'
Q (D 0 O
01 Cc ro
�%i�v
0 Q
�gc�
U U O
0 E Q) `�
Q) �U
CL �+
0
D 0 o
o�� E
0 Q) O 0
CL W a) 3 ,E
X
a�co
oo
C 'U U) Qi
ai �Eo'�
Z- 0-
L0 +r
rrOn� Q) > O
Vi
c c
U)
U)
w
Q.`
a
w
W
m
z
w
z
0
T-
a_
LU
J
W
H
Fr"•
v
I`1
^-:7
'{
+
�.
7
la
r
r
r.
LLJ
r
w
V'
Fr"•
v
I`1
^-:7
'{
+
�.
7
la
r
r
r.
LLJ
w
V'
w
�✓
J1
Fr"•
v
I`1
0 0
E
Q, c
cn
c o
to
CL
0' E
w
❑
'A
0 6 c c
i
j
�� � _
W
l0
.� C: 'n
43
° E
C = C;) 0 �+
.- CC
N
w
f■E
c N o },
411
c ca- U 0
m
/�
VN
N �
U) z-]�
D
Z
>
O �
w
Z
j
U)
D
7;
d
Lu
ro �
.0
CL
�
Qv
u¢
L
�Qo
ai
Lno
♦-+
a a m c
o
o � ,� m
� ���
Q�
A�
W
ro
w
❑
�..
v
aEmo
V/
Q��
N
7
cn
0
N N 0-0LU
a�-c(roro
Wc
O
00
0 N O %—
E
U
U]
1
+
U)�--Q C
�
CL C:
.a Q
O
p
7
- s -0 U
s
ro
fl
as a °7
}
c > E 0
s
0 ro a
+�
aD E FU
r
Cl) m -0
m
LU
Q
E
'A
j/ WW
j/ WW
c
_o
� Q �
COL
cts
c6=
5 Lo � O
0 Q
(� 2) C
Q cn
O C � Q
E
L4 w
C N }_. C
c ca -
N
Qva. C o E
v u) :3 cn 'a
O ca
o v
C")
0.— v
m< a)
>N � o =
0
CL a v
a—�
Q C
v 4-
oEay.0 E L;--
;--
75 cn �
E N
Q0)N
C .
v_
N XN O C -0 O
Q) N v
O
Q
CL C'2
X j til
>
N C 0
� C —_
ZE
L.
v v N
��
rrL] 7 O
VJ m _0 m
w
w
in
z
LU
z
O
2
d
LU
J
LU
F—
71
Jlj
4;
r
-�I
.J I
k
ld
LLJ
—ty'-
�1
0
�
I
r�
.I
V
V
' •Y
�f
CL
r
O
.L
U
W
■�
www■
CL
V♦
Q
E
m
nV/
W
c
_o
� Q �
COL
cts
c6=
5 Lo � O
0 Q
(� 2) C
Q cn
O C � Q
E
L4 w
C N }_. C
c ca -
N
Qva. C o E
v u) :3 cn 'a
O ca
o v
C")
0.— v
m< a)
>N � o =
0
CL a v
a—�
Q C
v 4-
oEay.0 E L;--
;--
75 cn �
E N
Q0)N
C .
v_
N XN O C -0 O
Q) N v
O
Q
CL C'2
X j til
>
N C 0
� C —_
ZE
L.
v v N
��
rrL] 7 O
VJ m _0 m
w
w
in
z
LU
z
O
2
d
LU
J
LU
F—
71
Jlj
4;
r
-�I
.J I
k
ld
LLJ
—ty'-
�1
0
�
I
r�
.I
V
V
' •Y
4-1
r
C�
�
I
r�
V
0
cn
w
❑
w
cr-
w
Z
LU
z
O
T-
CL
w
J
w
LU
D
0
U
CL
N
U
w
w
U)
U)
CO
w
0-1a
rr.r
l
C�
Py�
r�
.'J
Ci
I
4�
c O
In �p
L I
-
MO 1 S_
cmc...
m' c
A�
O_'5 C
V/
Cn Q-�Oy
2V)�
�]
T
w�!
0 c L ,V
Q- o E
}+�
m
c M 0 '_
cO O C
�' N
p 0.i ti
CL
m --0.
U
•U
O
O
O
oo
Q
o
-E °
m
CL
C:L+�+
d
—
a)o-0o
-C
r_ E
o�� E
0 � o o
CL Q)
E���3
O
O_
O
x j > -0
/7
4- O L -W
'5
( c) Q
m
a � )
C -L) m N
L -0 �
,^
(i 3: C
L m
G
Q
ID +-1 C
L (Z O
iJ
++
U) m -0
m
cn
w
❑
w
cr-
w
Z
LU
z
O
T-
CL
w
J
w
LU
D
0
U
CL
N
U
w
w
U)
U)
CO
w
0-1a
rr.r
l
C�
Py�
r�
.'J
Ci
I
4�
�rm --
(D a
0
C _
o •-
t/i (D
0
i AR
C
V♦
E
W
rn �
C 0
Q w
0
c4 to 0
cr}
Q 0
E
o °'��'3
C: 0
0��.0�
C— ++
0 ' .C: m
L� N
C Q '�E::; C
CL C)
N 5 0 U
aDLU)-�.
<CL. -off
L 0 4--
= Cn
.� C
°Cin
c�uQC00
ai0'00
0- C �
0�
Eo
C M C w
L
Q
°+,�� 3
X C -0 O
"C3 cn c C I,
pJ "c Q) eSf
oE
o a ° ° �°
�a 0
4-(Dc-'0�
C " Q1
O "01—
'- 0
L
Um
t
�!E _0
Z EIn
Q
N
U 0� w
Q
U)
U)
LU
d
Q
J_
Q
w
w
m
z
w
z
0
2
d
w
J
w
U)
w
Q
ti
off
r �}
�
A.
S
.'�N
hr
Q "r.
"I
t eS
0
C o
iZ .-0
Q � �
�= E
`s
0= O
(t3 9) C
o c 3
�•r-� d)
o 0 E
= o� cc «.
� N
C= Q)
c a v O
E
m m o C V)
CO f6 41 Q -0
O'U.0
roQ ao
ai°,0o
L
N L U
W
m
[d U U 4-
0
O E Q}
(C
D
CL
O
N N 0-0 O
m ny m
y ❑ -
0 a)
a elful
[SS O
Q � W
x > > .O
4D m C: Q
0
�° 01-
-p
Cll C cC O
-,F--m E a
a`) 0 � 3 �
>Eos
(DZ-- Q�
0 O ++
Q� > o
U)u -
w
CO
Z
w
z
0
CL
w
w
I ---
w
0
U
w_
N
}
U
w
LU
Cl)
U)
U)
LU
DL
Q
w
Q
z
M
ray
0
iaA
Ca
r-�
f
i
•,�.!`
ice--.
4V
t�
W
S
�4
o �T.
,
Lna
O
� � C
t`CL
o
.
1
i
r
L
t�
w-���3
C: L 4- a)
U E
c N
L N }I
co
C 0-U O
Q) C w 0
Lo L
Q Q) C ` t4
N a � D 'O
C
� .s
- r- N
Q
m ca��.
D U U
C Q
Q) O 0
L
O U) — a
p E � O
M C ♦�+
Q) Q) C)
E L t
a•�� 3
a) L o
a) 0-0 _O
,h
'VI
O Q}I. Q
1�
Q of U 3 ,_
� O
CL
Z- N p
o
' �w
0-
L �J
U m70V
-c-- L ca C Q
Q) (D N
C 7 E
L Co O ++
Q N
0 -
a
Lu
00
❑
z
LL)
Z
O
EL
uLI
J
w
R -
ti V
J
W
S
k. L I
,
T
t`CL
o
.
1
i
r
w
r
CL
co
�J
(
m
w-���3
C: L 4- a)
U E
c N
L N }I
co
C 0-U O
Q) C w 0
Lo L
Q Q) C ` t4
N a � D 'O
C
� .s
- r- N
Q
m ca��.
D U U
C Q
Q) O 0
L
O U) — a
p E � O
M C ♦�+
Q) Q) C)
E L t
a•�� 3
a) L o
a) 0-0 _O
,h
'VI
O Q}I. Q
1�
Q of U 3 ,_
� O
CL
Z- N p
o
' �w
0-
L �J
U m70V
-c-- L ca C Q
Q) (D N
C 7 E
L Co O ++
Q N
0 -
a
Lu
00
❑
z
LL)
Z
O
EL
uLI
J
w
R -
ti V
J
�i
S
k. L I
,
T
1
i
r
r
�i
S
,
z.
V
S
3
Y�
0
O 0
co
cn
W
❑
Q
J_
Q
LU
W�i
r�
0
v\ Vj .
s�
0
C o
o E
0) co °
m
\
co O i
'C
C:C-CC]
a
E
C= U) r-+
IS N
IS
C (D
��r
C Q v
=
O
U
a)0a
¢r�n�oE
t6
r
LD V! z;
ca
z cz 0 a
N
ra
CL
L
Co ¢ N Q
��a'0o
L a/
W
O E N w
`M �
L
CL
Q�N p�
,0 0
°'°-0 O
�.
)
ocR 0 E
tf O � D O `O
O_a` U
CE (Z 3
v)L1)3)
C Q
0
c-5oa
C —
C)
C 'U (6 L 0
0
7
(6 C
Q
a) !n (
O
N
C 7 E O
�.+ Q >'
O- N j
C
(I? m -0
m
O 0
co
cn
W
❑
Q
J_
Q
LU
W�i
r�
0
v\ Vj .
s�
= o
CL r
0 ■i
� L
�L X11
CL
V♦
E
0 0
1\`
r
R..
c o
w
CL
C�
E
o
t`v
CE�� �°
¢
J_
� 0 C �
tom+
LW
CD = 3
j
o z
p�. O
aT • — c � U
�
�''
N
LU
In
)
CO O N U
Z
CD C L R;
O E
w
O
[�
T VJ = N -0T-
Cis
LRT
ui
O C 0—i
O
.2
+.
[��=
O•-
RT Q (D O Q
ai ' 0 0
G
(1)
L w
07 d.1CL
N
v
O O 0-0 p
4�
O m
0
( 3
-0 G
CL U N —
c c 3
U)
w
t
co . a
[If
'
E -2 Q CL
CD Z5
-0
,V
•�
(D
WL
W � � V
•v+
c
U RT O
L
(D L a�
CL
°' m-'
�-0
m
o
W
1\`
r
R..
t`v
1\`
r
R..
E
9
c
U,
0
(10
CL
w
cr
0
0
0
KA
cm cn
N
CII
CL L)
>
<CL
w
z
" D E
0
a_
r_
o
LU
C: tn
LU
CL
o -0(D
�
0
5, E
co < (D 0 0
0 0
=3
L) 4�
0
Q } >, Q r-
0
0 (n a)
CL
0
co C) L)
w
0
0 E 0
0
(D
a_
CL
OE
N
z -�5 .26
> 5R c c
Cl)
(1) (L) 0-0 0
_0 r- .—
Y) C:
mLU
0) r Q)t6Lli
o E
EE
c: 0 0
0
�s
0-
co
0- U
co
-0
2!,
> >
c p as
-io 0
73 4�
0 -0
W ca
_0 -0
co
LCL
CD W 0)
U)
L) W 0
0- w >
0
=5
U)
ui
Z
9
0
k
C,
OF
09
I,
L
EV
KA
0
k
C,
OF
09
I,
L
EV
0
r4
O
U)
CL
CL
E❑
ui
-Fo L.
0
-r-
0 5 0
(D cr
<
CM
LU
a)
0-0= 0 E
10— N
LU
CL C) 0
o
CL
5
U v)
C7
>ca
w
< CL
Z3 U)
U) Z)
C:
LU
0
—1
LU
0
CO M
0
m < S0
(L) 0
2) 0 0
0
C) ch Q
L- CL 4- t Z) c
m M
LU
0
U)
L)
M
C/)
Q- `'=
N
0
7T)
>
W Q) o -O 0
70
1-:
Z .—
V) C M M
ui
a) C Q)
w
0 o o
a.[ If
ca))
Q- a)
n-0 C: C;
U)
w
r— --@
2!, CL 0
0
cn
.—
0 >
75 x
0
>
r 0
6 -
0 CL
41
o a)
70 a)
O
CL
M
> E 0
L)
> 0
Q)
-0 cq
LU
2E
0
r4
C7
9
CD c
.0
CL
E
E z
U)
0 F- 0
E
0
Q
0 4 -O
E
cm
14
Q.—
CLL) 0
(D
>
CL o E
m
0 (D
C')
0
< 0
0
C
c
0 U)
4-
0 E
C:
75
>
-9 .2
(D -C: Q) ca
Ln E
0 a)
C:
CA C: 0
2!, -2
5> >
Z- C 0
0
0)
0 -0 a)
(D
-0-1-- -CC—)
C)
!E
-0 >b -B.
(D m H
-r- E a.
c-- > E 0
C)
5
7 :3
8- >
0
VJ m -0 m
CD 0
ll�
LU
(n
D
z
LU
z
0
m
CL
w
-j
LU
<3
0
ri
J-
3;
O
C� CL Y
(� 03 O
�.
R3 o -r- °t
L E '� C
o L o m
E
� = � Lo
Q) O C
41
Q U p
cf)
N U cJa � A
Q N C L
Q'� p
U) u3
�o(D
C U .2
Q(D4o
a' a o
Q
O co do) O
+- — Q A
C
a)(DU
•
CY) L i
o
Q) Q) 0-0
O
O n
o c ° ° p
U
!, CL q—°,
Yom- Q�
c�OCLw
CD —_
Q) Q) W : N
E O
N +� CL >"
C) Co 0
75
co
0
W
x
0
J_
W
LL1
co
Z
LU
Z
a
2
rL
LLI
J
LU
LLI
0
0
C)
a
N
t
C)
LW
LL1
U)
w
Q
I
0
C'
IN
i�
r
LU
'1
Z
i
g _
.^i
O
C� CL Y
(� 03 O
�.
R3 o -r- °t
L E '� C
o L o m
E
� = � Lo
Q) O C
41
Q U p
cf)
N U cJa � A
Q N C L
Q'� p
U) u3
�o(D
C U .2
Q(D4o
a' a o
Q
O co do) O
+- — Q A
C
a)(DU
•
CY) L i
o
Q) Q) 0-0
O
O n
o c ° ° p
U
!, CL q—°,
Yom- Q�
c�OCLw
CD —_
Q) Q) W : N
E O
N +� CL >"
C) Co 0
75
co
0
W
x
0
J_
W
LL1
co
Z
LU
Z
a
2
rL
LLI
J
LU
LLI
0
0
C)
a
N
t
C)
LW
LL1
U)
w
Q
I
0
C'
IN
i�
r
LU
'1
Z
.^i
}I
C
D
o
}+ Qi
W
i CL
co
i E
m
0
m C
c o
m a
Ems— E
O � �
o��am
S Q=
Q or -
C:
Q CL— p E
NW=, I u'D
c
m m o
C) ,
� 71 U O
O - w
czQ(Doo
a�
o
oa) c
n '~ a�
a E 0 o
G C
E c7 Q) w
3
r+
O N U o
Q) +
f6 �
rte- O
d� U � C
CA
E c w$++
a W
mac)
a�
U 0-y
(n O 0 CD
m C.
} O '� Q
0 (6 O ++
0- N 0
U) (4 'O
co
f
a
I
r
V,
U,
LL1
Z
o
1
a
LU
r
LLJ
LU
w�
ol�
r
U)
y
4
U)
0
v
7�2
L
0
'k
0) a
U)
CL
ui
m o
_r
10
C
co 0 -q-
op - I,-
":�
E
CD
O.N
Lmu
0-0
0
(1) 73 (D
q) 2
D
z
> wz
LU
< o--- o
0
m M 0 W mLU
-j
2= 0
w
CL
co -0
0
0
Lr
< 5, E 0
C
(n
C r -
w o o
4.j
CL (DO
30
0
0
'45
0 E (05
(u a)
14
■
CL
E
COL.
-aa) 0) -Cc: .0
0 C
LLI
M
Q)
o u) E
Ir,
t 0
4
E70
C: Z
w
cm: -C 1?
C.U. 0
2C
x >
❑
> .0
(1) C 0 -
0 0CL
—
—0 >b
Q) � C: m
mc E
CL
V)
a)
>
L)
L-
CD 7 E
(D >
0
=0-
, Q)
-0
w
Z
1.
v
7�2
L
0
'k
0
LLI
VI
CL
E
L.
U) n 0
F-
0
*Cf
co
.
co C
> cd
T u) Lo
CZ U)
0
CL
3: Z03
0
��-
< 0 o
(1)
t>F (D 2) Fo- cc
Q) M L)
CL -O >, (1)
(n = -�-
= Z) c
U'o
0 E o ;E
46 CL C: z-
cn 0) Z
U) (D
cn
-0
U)
. 2-0
0
of
C Q)
> >
CCL
0
0 L
—
=5L
CL
a) W
� (D
C > E
Q)
cn
2 o
>
0
N
m
m -0
m
LLI
rI
2:31
L.
rI
2:31
E
0 0
Of
LU
CCLL
E
w
ZT c c
N
0.—
7=
7� Q_ rL 0 0
Ui 2 in z >I
< a
ro 0
CL
a
or)
0
0 iF
E
0 0
CY) C: C
L_ 0 0
C) .6�
C
0
a
0Q
�. O�
C:L
,__ m
0
0 E
CLE' >.
C M Lo $�
(D Q1 .21z
V)
E
CL
fl 0)
'�5 *6
Z -
> '5<- c r_
(D 43) 0 7C) 0
Cl)
0
ro- � E
'0
0 (D
a (1)
E
a C
(n C: q) 0
M
Lim)
OL
x) >
z_ 43 C:
0
cy) Z
O'U
Q)
-a -C -0 -0 L)
4-;
C: 0 co (n
Q
(3) c cc
zz co
CL
(n
(D Q)
u)
> E 0
y_ -'
(D
(D CE Z
4�
CL >
0
D
0 0
14
Of
LU
w
w
14
c O
CL
Ems= L.
E
c�
u , o
D L O
o cr)
0 E
G _ cm ++
ocl
a
< CL
a� zi V)
Qc�a
C:
CL 44Z CO
O E N � O
CL
E �
Q L +�+
0
C x c -0 0
4a o
o -C: Cl)
c��
0�(n E
Q � o o
Q� 0 ( .
7 C c 3
c
Q �
�aDco
c�°��
c_D —_
3 �
L
-0os�
C 'U CBL d
Q�-
M Q �+
q} j O
Uj [� a) c6
co
co
w
n
Q
Q
W
cr-
w
m
Z
w
z
0
T
CL
w
w
w
❑
0
U
a_
N
r
c.)
LU
w
U)
U)
LU
❑
Q
w
a
z
k
0
3
M.
4 el
C cn
�. wCL
L 1
C>
a�� o
cy)0
m' cwt -� rn
3 R'o � LO 0 ti ;'1
5 0 0Z
j r.. LLJ
Z
C: LLI
r■ L Cl1 Q(D Q O rti� { r
CL M
■� V/�L N= N CL
�11
Qvi_ 1
y 00 u�
7 a m '
QU Q) co
0 N w
N 7 0� Q 5 "
W � -0 o Q C
S
V? CL>- ++ 1�
0 ♦+ - :t;
0 0
W
U)
w
ry
r')
CQ
C)
LU
�z
CL
0
-q-
Qf,
Ly
0
a) cr
0 0
CD Q
0 -0 0 E
(n
E cc
4-a
L) 0
fc: CL
VI
0
C1� Qi
(D
>"
(D C
< 0--- 6 E
4-
(n
Qf Z U)
-;
CL
Q)
CO CU -0.
no
E 0
0
2) 0 0
Qo (1) c
0 Lo
CL
,.- C) C) 'o
0 E Q) 4 --
Lm
V)
(D
CL
CL 3: Q) a)
O
>
a) a) 0-0 0
_0 C .—
0 C: cu CSC
-
M
c a)
E
c 0 0
Q)
0 0
0-
E
0 C (D
M— (D 0
>
0
(1) C: rd
_c-_ co E
C:
CL
(D In
9)
(D 0
E O
0
CL >-
M 0
(D >
0
W
U)
w
ry
r')
CQ
C)
LU
�z
0
9
0) c0
0
U)
y.
LU
IIN
CL
0 E
CZ
CL
E 2)
(D
LU
cy-
0-0 0
of0
, N -I..,
ui
m
CL 7t,- c
0 0
O
CL
7;
>
ui
< cLL E
T u) z;
Vi
r
m
(D
LU
-j
fl
of r- .-0 C: 0
w
r
CL
(Y) M
3:
0
r
<
(L)C
C;) r-
(1) o
Q2
0
co 0 L)
0
0
0 E wu--
Q -,E >�
Co M *J
0
0)
a
CL
-
C.SZ-
>
0) 0-0 0
-+- C- .-
W C:
LU
M
(D - Q)
LU
0
o u)
o
0 (D ° o
CL E (D S
E
O_ Q)
D z
32!,
0
w
(j) 0
MA-) (1)
0
-5 -Q)c 0
-2 0 CL
0 -0
_0 -0
C) U)
U
(D
(D 4
2
_r_ cu C: E
to (D
(D
U)
75
(D > 0
:E
0_
G-
Q) >
cu -0
(a
LLJ -
9
y.
IIN
IIN
-j
0 0
LU
ca
co 0
E -Z
-6-14 %o
'o CT
0 C- 0
0
0
4-- Ct
c -c LE 0
0-0, E
V)
r
a)
CL
c CL 0
0
Lo
(1) 2 Z) (D u
< o--- o E
,A
LU
0
'Or
C)
a.
0
-- c cn
0
CL
r.
Z; C)
0
LL
0
5, E
Cl)
< a) 0 0
U)
U)
Iff 0 0
cl
cL .2
<
0
CL
4_(4
oEai
CL
7FD
>
Q) (L) o -;o0
co.-
4�
u) Ey p LLW
_a "
t�
0 o 0 o
ECO
ME
C Q)
m -0
5x0-4
7@
x 0--
5 > >
C 0
0 _0j a)
-0 -c- io L) M
4i
C: .2 co = (n
-0
E
cL
Q) a)
> E 0
iE
0
C)- a) >
0
U) m -0
m
LU
ca
LU
0
LL1
,A
LU
0
C)
a.
LLI
LL
i
Cl)
U)
U)
LU
cl
<
Yj
CL
0.—
co ._co
o lot
E
Rom
CD c
O
CL
m
Er— E
a� o.
N !C
C Q� Q = C
C: C_ U O
Q) N A
Q m
0-,-L
o
0
T Z -a
w
EC-
o a �
cO cu .
o U
�Q�oo
CL a) a
a V) — d
Q� 3 C
a E Q A
C
Q) (D
CL 0)O w=r+
a}�-�
@ 0
W
a) a) 0-0 O
0-
c
- W rry�
o a)
0 -of
�-0T(U0
ac':
0
L Q
c o 0
'ao.-a)
m`na�vi
V M O w
Q � Q
0 m "U �
�nnS
U
v
C-
9
r
�•4
r
s y=
C O
t
+-
0 0
w,
1
C O
+-
0•- a
'j
0 c�
Q ' c
I
�a)cr
Q
O -C v...
E C
c E
O
W
c:
_
U-r- Q>"
L
• L � � G)
0-0 0 �
_O
n.
0 •- c
m
LU
1JJ i6 +J
C O O'C
--' Q Q
m
CL�
W
�LU
U3 L
Z
.
C..�
Q
2
d
;.
M
f4 O C
LU
r
(Y U)
W
C7 (� O
C i.!
U _
5, E
A
Q0O0
O E
ti�E A
C
a
i
r
E
L
N
0 . 3
iD
>'x c O C
U
r.
�.
w(D0-0o
C N C
w O E � L
W
,
C O O
w,
1
Lu
a
z
J,
r
I
a
MR
L -j
w
A4
i
A
tet`
C O
try
0•- a
'j
Lu
a
z
J,
r
I
a
MR
L -j
w
A4
i
A
tet`
C O
0•- a
Q ' c
I
c E
(D Q)
� E O
_
U-r- Q>"
L
+�+
it
_O
�!1!
1JJ i6 +J
•M
Lu
a
z
J,
r
I
a
MR
L -j
w
A4
i
A
tet`
W
m
LU
z
0
CL
ui
ui
� C
c O
c�
l
lam^^-
J �•
L
•
O L p
1
o E
L -
w r�
_
U) Y
no- U O
U)
n
o
20
Q
�.
+�
aw�L�
CL
73 -0
m�.0
E C N
o
CL
a
m
Q-C 0 U
3:
o
■a■.
O
�Qaat
CO0
0 :3U D
� O �O
O
8-='R C
E � O
O N
C.
-° ; f 3
D
>
(n
3
O O D 'Q `o
0- 3
c)
■
H Wj O
T 0
V L) Q
}'
7
i
V
i�
0- 2 !FU)
U
L m E
a
0
CL
41/
p
� j
O
IfJ
UM -0
m
W
m
LU
z
0
CL
ui
ui
>
N Ol
L -
w r�
_
U) Y
U)
n
C)
Q
�.
0
,--I
I..,-
N
rrr.r
W
Q =
0.-
(D
� L
0
U
r�
CL
U)
r. E
0
C_ 0
o a
u = `o
O 0
a o E
c ar C)
UJ N 5 w 0
N U) >1
> QJ C L I�
¢Q. - off
L 0 0
LD U)
M 0 0 M
� C �
o v
-4- 703 �
�Q5,00
O'0 0
o- �, as r-
2
O Lo — — 0
C- -=C
•+- m U U
o�W
Q' +�+
C
N (D Ci
C s
•�
0
a)mo-0o
-0 C y
0Q) -'°o
CL U O
t�°��o
cu
.� W r o
o C
o 0
m -0 to
-0 U s v+
m d
s
C
(D
Co o
L m
w
J_
w
LU
co
LU
z
0
CL
w
J
w
I --
LU
0
U
N
F -=
c�
w
w
U)
U)
U)
LU
1
3�
Ns
0
0—
5
1-
ui
I
r'
zI
0
0—
w
n
5
1-
I
w
n
0
0
LU
Q
J_
Q
Lb
I
w
L
LU
z
O
�v
w
LU y
M
L U •1
O
n
N
L
U �
LU
LU nn
� e~
co
U)
w
❑ ..
)J
t/
LU
z
V
c�
rs►
1
L�
O
CL «.
ca a
n o
C)
L N
N
i�
•r-
c: lEN--- Qi
ri
O E
•��
rJ
1Y
N
Ocl U O
J
W
L w
> N C 0
E
o
N 73 m -0
#�
C� 0
co
O �
N
o ro
n�
CL
=
�Q _
c�uQ�o
L
o
oo
+
D U ++
0
}�
0 V) 0
QN
L C W
CL
p E O
vU--
■w.
CL
COLN
75
V ♦
�+
QF
LO E
o
oa�Q.ao
0
C
L)
a� o
N
X -
� > > �
L d N 3 L
'p L CSS
_ -0 U�
U
V
Lrr
Q)
V
(z I
C^'
W U
a > E O
:c
�'-
o�.
a
>
�
f
�t
tis
r
0
LU
Q
J_
Q
Lb
I
w
L
LU
z
O
�v
w
LU y
M
L U •1
O
n
N
L
U �
LU
LU nn
� e~
co
U)
w
❑ ..
)J
t/
LU
z
V
c�
rs►
1
L�
C)
i
ri
•��
rJ
1Y
J
�l
�S ,
E
0 c
w
w
if t
a_
Lli
C
C
C: 0
)
o CL
0 E
'/
7.
m cr
0 -r- 0
<
Z
W
(D
E
cy)
o 3: C: L'
Q)
iw
c a)
CL 0 0
CL
Vi
0
5
4%U0
ca
r.
< 0--- E
04
" 0 -
LD V) =1 (n
c
U)
0
U)
w
E'-
0
0
0) 0
CD C: C
Z) U o
Q) 0
CL'�2 (1) C
0
M
M � 0 4-
0
O E o Lr-
C:
15
> -5�
a) (D 0-0 o
-0 C:
(D
o E
1: O.c 0
o 0
0-
0-
2!-
Wor,,
CL
x
> >
Q) 0
C�ML) 0-
0 _0
Q)
-0
TVl
7:s L)
M —
O EL) _0
a)
CL >-
0
> 0
0 c
w
w
if t
a_
Lli
C
QJII
)
'/
C)
VI
<
Z
as
w
LLI
Cf)
U)
U)
w
0
rn
t�
QJII
)
'/
VI
<
Z
0
rn
t�
)
'/
VI
as
�10
rte■
O
M
4 a—
L
c
■ CL
U)
O
m
E
w �
cn m
3:
I
m
z
R
�i
4
' j
r�
r�
l
►v
A�
i
i
O
U]
U)
M
Q
U
E a
❑
Q
coop°s
t
Q
°
o� }' E
C: — rn
m
^�
N O
C C U 0
V
w
N u N
N G L
Qz
U E
Z
O
(U ul
=
.�
w
C Cly
W
Q�
CO
�Q(D0
rn c c
o 0
� o �
CL
Q [n - O
� c �
CL
m U U 0
Q E CU L
LU
U)
O
U
�.
Q)U
Cl
�v +�+
°
N
3
>
Q) 0 -a 0
y
N
L11
=�=LU
O
f]'
.�- L
oa�i°•a0
c��n
Q
W
U)0
O
— C.
> O
Q
QQ
y-+
0 j CD
cu
-G...
E
CL
CL �
Z—
Co O
4�
�+
t+
w
w^e
C U
W
Z
m
z
R
�i
4
V
L
' j
r�
l
►v
V
L
' j
l
►v
A�
V
L
►v
i
f■
0
m _
m
M
� L
CL
75 V
o r.
m
E
V? �
C O
f4 CL
E L
L E 0
d E
QQ�Q
+'
4 C LR
O �
CO (U
r- d'-
roQ�oo
ami o 0
m =
o U) m
d E
��- QC A
cn
CL 0) (D L
LO
0
(D 0-0 o
(D -� d
c 0 '0^ 0
CL d�
_ U .
=s
m -- N D
x
w. mco�
o
b�-0 �
C: -0 c>
-o
Q1 a)
cn
5 E
#. 0-
C) ++
>
U) C�
O 0
W
m
75
Z
LL
z
O
d
W
J
W
H
LU
0
O
U
IV
U
W
W
U)
CO
LLJ
❑
Q
W
Q
Z
P
c U)0)O w
ICL
o E o
� IT 4
c� c w 'G
o
rt..
�
3 (u w G 4
�. co.� m f
o N u
Q
z
m c
a {
G)cn
"+
CL m
ai �<5,E
M
Q
4-
co COL c U
■� E N
�
o `p 4
Cj)'D N o 7" o�
w
o - E o - _c
.3 cn
�
(D �C' 2-0 ¢ +
cE o� a
+. Q
o ++ s J r
:"
0
�` ^) a� ,
V
Z
v`
0
"/I
4r
i
N
s�
v..
C
U)
C O
w
Q
O..
) E
❑
In 0
J
0= a ._
E C
O 0, � (D
C L •+- C?
r-+ O E
C — � V) �+
a) C
N
LU
C
o
co:Q V �
�
U V) :
D
Z
}+
< E
LU
Z
o
aim
r_
T-
_
E
w
�■■�..�
(� C fn
ui
CL
r
CO -0 .
I�
^
VQ
O E
0 D
Q)
N N o Q
CL c
C)
C C
O EnLU
#�
^�
W
L)O
❑
LC:10c-cm
N
a) 3:a)
a_
■�
AR
W
CL
E py L t
C
N
V
>'x c O
U
�+■+
♦ A
V ♦
Q) N 0-0 O
co
m co ca
w
c
E
7
cn
E�_
c
w
.,
cop
co
O
75 x >
C
L) Q+S+
3 0°.'
-0 70 U t
w+
C ' L) M
C>
ax � C cc
O
C > E O
a)
._.
M _0
"/I
4r
i
N
s�
v..
r—
to
LU
1
Lj
C • C L �+- Q1
E
�
as • � C � cs
�
N
r
`N
ui
N .
C +J
C Q U
rn
r
cD N
j N
Z
Q C L
l!J
2
Q NI
U)
C
LLI
' C _N
ui
co
r o_.�
¢ � 0
S
L
C, r
N
a
Q
�.
o
0 E (D
O
/��
CL
L US
CL
0 t'
> O
v x C -0
Y/
ul C:
LU
a
L O c(—E
r
Q U Q)
co
+j
-''Q��
\}
�� a aCL
t
L0 0 y L
7
�
C U M N
U
t
�
>
(D
V J {� V
war
6
Allalk
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Paula J. Hammond, P.E.
Secretary of Transportation
March 12, 2010
Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner
City of Renton Planning
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Subject: Walmart Expansion
LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF
SR 167 / SR 405 vicinity
Dear Ms. Timmons:
0
Northwest Region
157.0 Dayton Avenue North
PC) Roy 330310
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
206-440-4000 ' Fax >06-409-7250
TTY: 1-800-833-6388
'NvYw V.wsdat.tva,gcv
City Of
�'i nnirr9 DrVr; if017
E
t r��
-'
k
-�'
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted for the above subject project. The proposed project includes
a 15,900 sf expansion of the existing store to provide a grocery component. A total iperease of
approximately 600 [rips during the day and 50 trips during the weekday PM peak hour is
expected. The project site is on the NW corner of the SW Grady Way and SR167 (Rainier Ave
S) intersection in the City of Renton.
1. Page ii — Executive Summary: the project expansion area should be 15.900 gsf, not
15,900 ft as shown_
2. Figure 1: SR167 ends at MP27.28, which is at the intersection of Rainier Ave S and S
2"d St., north of the project site. Please label SR167 on the Vicinity Map and all
applicable figures.
3. Page 4 — Roadway Network. as commented above, Rainier Ave S within the project
limits is identified as SR167, not "becomes SR 167 further south of the project site" as
stated. Please revise.
4. The provided traffic analysis assumptions and findings were found adequate. The
minimal increase in trips would not significantly impact State highway system within
the project vicinity.
If you have any questions, or require additional information please contact Felix Palisoc of our
Developer Services section by phone at 206-440-4713, or via e-mail at palisof@wsdot.wa.gov.
Z
�'U
Ramin
Local Agency and Development Services Manager
RP: fsp
cc: Project 1 Day Pile
Rick Roberts, MS 120
City of Ren Department of Community & Economic Defopment
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT. -Co r
COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 8, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010
APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND
PLANNER: Rocale Timmons
PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion
PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 13.6 acres
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet
LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an
additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail
space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the
northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing
surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a
total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian
pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately
13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located
within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th
Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way_. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
8. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS f
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Li ht/Gfore
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
IQ, D0O Feet
14, 000 Feet
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact
or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
•
King County
Wastewater Treatment Division
Community Services and Environmental Planning
King Street Center, KSC-NR-0505
204 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
March 5"', 2010
Rocale Timmons
CED- Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Walmart Expansion
Dear Mr. Timmons;
C►ty'If Fjento,,
"l�tr;r�ir1P Dhlision
MAR 8 lOiQ
The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance dated February 22nd for the demolition of a restaurant and expansion of a Walmart. King
County requires that a capacity charge be applied to any project that constructs a new connection to the
sewer system, any reconnection within five years of a disconnection, or any change in use or building
remodel that includes an increase in plumbing fixtures. King County generally receives notice of new
construction; however, some sewer districts and/or the cities that represent them have neglected to
report changes in use and tenant improvements that involve an increase in plumbing fixtures.
In an attempt to remedy this problem, we are sending this reminder to you in response to the Notice of
Application with Optional Determination of Non -significance. We ask that you forward this reminder
to the sewer district or city department responsible for Sewer Use Certification forms:
Please complete and send a Non -Residential Sewer Use Certification form for the above
project to the King County Capacity Charge Program in a timely manner. The form should be
sent to Ericka Stewart, Capacity Charge Program, KSC-NR-0502, at the address above. if
you need additional forms or have questions about the program, please call Ericka at (206) 684-
1060,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal.
Y
ely n o ntlgy l�
Community Services Environmental Planning
cc: Ericka Stewart, Program Manager, Capacity Charge Program
CREATING RESOURCES FROM WASTEWATER
a. 9
L-9
King County
Wastewater Treatment Division
Environmental Planning and Community Services
King Street Center, KSC-NR-0505
209 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98904-3855
March 2"', 2010
Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner
CED - Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Walmart Expansion
Dear Mr. Timmons;
0
City of Renton
Purina_ DiVIS101-L
MAR -- 8 2010
The King County Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD) has reviewed the Mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance dated February 22"d, 2010. King County's Eastside
Interceptor is located within or near the proposed location of your project (see attached
drawings). In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting that the City
of Renton do the following:
• Submit construction drawings for the project to our Asset Management section for
review during design development so that King County staff can assess project impacts.
Please send drawings to:
Bob Isaac, Local Public Agency Administrator
King County WTD Asset Management
201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
Thank you for opportu y to review and comment on this proposal.
Sincerely, /
Al o oun jo /
Envi ental P nJ(ing & mmunity Services
cc: Bob Isaac, Local Public Agency Administrator, Engineering & Asset Management
[Attachment(s)]
CREATING RESOURCES FROM WASTEWATER
AHdVa9oloHd d0 31VO 30NIs 535NVHD 103-lj3a 44
1ON 04 aNV AMNO 31Vwlxoaddv 3aV SanOlN43
8961'NVi NI 03W60dk33d AHd4aDD10Hd -I4I63V �Z a�� ^'" OD
Z�a��
�—
��y
ROS Q
{
❑ua O
a
w o
U) LLP
ti4w - Z
xVW.W .. W
Kr
c, chn
LLJ
I I Icr
� � 4tih 9
,Y O w
i t lk h l!)
F� wr
n \ Ii N
Lu
4,
y1 L h1 L�`
Lu
kL
13
z
En
`
�• 2 �I I, I fly II a 4e � � . I � •;.
pp W� 1I a aZ��.h bEFtLS I � i
' �; Ul W0. I,d H2 li 7i, Lm'
LLJ
' e�2 I�ES�fti a � I
���
Cl-
Or
1 „ o
�1
Wu7
qj
! Q
CL
oA 0.Q.: i 8
4 -
��2!
—_.4� h -
2 WL
4i I i
e ■ I � � ) I 1,
.4j 8
h as
Lu
t �� �� yr3��•' > 1, l4�� '+L"ki
i�,�pZ�
W Q _
ocl
L �� IY. �4` I _
ku
h
�. JQ�p q4. y 4Ury
4
o
V
I
D
D
ta
s i
U �
��'
rn
a LL,
TI
° k
I I ; I
I
I
i� 4• � - f�q'
W'4
j+
4ti ? c y vRo�
W ►4r
W�
jII
N kjA�he�
4�tigW v
"moo o
INN
v
I
i
1*
J
W'4�
! IIII
Illlil
li
I I !
R?24i0
w l�
0
J�
k4`'
yh�,
W, h: p vILL
m��
III
I
,..�
I 'I
I
In a
4 �� bq w pW ` v
W °s W U� 4ti
Z
�q0♦
I I, I
II'il �
II
J
I i
04a11
h 4r?`�`h >v � �� � 4 ��' 4M� WNtWi Q �
2�4
��`
CC Q
�
Z
h
:AhAoy �e 2k
s J
-
I Ilf
II
�jq
1! i
yI.'�{
I
WR `h u Q �h Q�' 4
w hgj_
o
VII
4�COl9h
C�a�
�li i!II
1,
Illill jl
Itil�; '+
II
d 1 4
wr
. ;lL� z
_
k+u��
�hw `
'i
I i'
I
I.
III �!j
I ;
'"
�
•
; II!' I
Q? �� �
ya , 17
Z i
h O q '.�'Au 0 �
J �. w
I� �
i' i;i
;I l'
i
I I
Z w
Z
�� �� O a
Z
Z�
w> -
W �q •I.
h.
itli�
~lilll�l
j� ;II,
IIIA
W Er
UU)
a
a.
w
Iil,l'II lil��Ilj
MI i!
�I
ilp
d iti y
a
❑�
�
Iii' I' I il,;.j�y;
I
!
wl ilrlf
h II: I
"j 4 :yo Q°�
4 * tiQ"I
II
�j
I
.i 'I
Ili li
� � `•� WtiC ti
N�
Er
w
I
c �` QhZW
II II i1
t1 u
_
4 "° oa e d, oa�au,�
q,
il'i ill!;;trl
til
t 11
II'I.
ijl
Wti ��, ° h
h 0 W
I� II'
l 'II, I'I
lili
� a
'
m
�ZQ ��4 q4a�
I I �� I I��
Illil �
illll i
i.'Ij1
h 0. any
W
�
y,4n pWQ ,�,y,'�ti+�+►►
4 .1..� rLr.
II
.a i} t=I}1
i' {i;ll
�p� ��
-
39 v]��q'-
jZ
—
��
Lj
0
CI' �
f l IIS h'
i'1
41 +:-1 �il
II
III
Illli I I
i�
I a li l I Ill IIII
i �, i II
a�
W� --
illj ljl
�I�
�
.IIII
� I, I
Ii; 'll
1 i
�� j{s,• I�4 j II; II, i I I
W
C
j3♦ � h,°�`E
�'��
'i�`�' �'�� i-
��i I.
� I
I
��II
I I
� � fi l �Q! l ��11 :IIS Fi...
'..&I �
d3,,d�'� ',
-
s
4 y
l I.
,l`, 3�
, I I' i
I . I
IIII
Iii
�
S QQ fI +n
1
'j I.
-{
y .a I
Q�cJ
IIII
j
11
i
f—
h�oro; \
IIj
S'!ulll
,I
Ili'
h �,Ui�`�� III I I I II I��' I I
_ WWW�ti�� I rrji,
11, li Y I
� �dc
•--�
Q
mfg r
lb
_
•�
@: ♦- i.[I
Q
I
s+-
.� III
;I{I,'.
I -I.1
r
h I II cl i y I �
as
!�',
¢e
Q
I
i 1
'f, 1
I. •y q ^ OSr4gF I�, i'; , 'yip `�' �j
A i 1,
r
`
gp�ti
�q�uM
I
U Whnti,
i
Ii
II
I
;I IIII
Irt',
,I11+1
I
�a'� tr
o w
kcUN
V
r` 4'OZW
�'—l�,
,
y n N I
tiara i I I II,,li l l
I4iJ
; , ii -f
�'
tigp� vhp� t r •7r -rF ��l- �� r' -f
m8
WQh
2t
W SW w h�
r :i til
7"
I'
+
p
f`4l�Cc, I I
ti o� q'ti6 ti I., V Z ti li
I li I
W �K h I j-
"Skuq I I I 'I I til
� y
s a
w
�`qV v 4� �• 4
dhti '�[�
'
I'•
i I I
II i
IIS
Ali l
I,
�ti;,<�Q 0 i '7 r I'' i. I' ! '' '' �
�• ��Q h I;I I j� r I; I
Ill
� z
a °
0a
Ij
U�N�♦
L
7h g�
lej�
11I'
III
III I i' i' ryl
Q
&
j
�
a
u
d II
_,•_ J..
�
i� I Ij !r'II j'� li, III
4 Q � I I
z a
I'4,
lit 'Il
��
t
I I
a a �ItH
a
x R
ti
�
J U!
h
Z Lhh��u y�
14 h a
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS DUE: MARCH S, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010
APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND
PLANNER: Rocale Timmons
PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion
PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 13.6 acres
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet
LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an
additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail
space and a reduction of 4.QQ0 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the
northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing
surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a
total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian
pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Bill McHales. The site area is approximately
13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (iM) zoning designations and is also located
within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th
Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way... There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Cade) COMMEN
Elementofthe
Environment
Probable Probable
Minor Major
impacts Impacts
More
information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
LandlShoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy)
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
Ali 5 ACU i�� S .i 0 (i
ci V1
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
utilities
Trons ortation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservotion
Airport Environment
Io, 000 Feet
14, 000 Feet
IS I COs -Pel 64 i i ---e- r-h+ip ed
i rn r° r*�I art clvl� VA 10 e� IV, tier -e,
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact
or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
-e /a/10
Signature o irect r or Authorized Representative Dat
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY c�ty'or
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:
March 4, 2010
TO:
Rocale Timmons, Planning Division
FROM:
Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor -)P-3
SUBJECT:
Walmart Site Plan Amendment
743 Rainier Avenue S
LUA-10-009, SA -H
EXISTING CONDITIONS
WATER
1. The site is currently served by the Renton water utility.
2. There is an existing 12 -inch looped main on the site serving the existing building.
3. The project site is located in the 196 Water Pressure Zone.
4. Fire flow availability to the site is approximately 5600 gpm from the existing
12 -inch main with the controlling factor being the limit on velocity in mains to S
feet/second.
5. The static water pressure is approximately 75 psi.
SEWER
The existing building is currently served by a private on-site system connecting to a City
of Renton line directly connected to the Metro line.
STORM
1. The site is located in the Black River drainage system and is currently connected to the
existing system in SW 7th Street. No downstream flooding issues are reported.
2. The property has an existing 12 -inch drainage system on-site which is proposed to be
expanded and revised. A report and calculations confirming the proposed site
redevelopment does not trigger flow control standards must be submitted with the
formal application.
3. A preliminary drainage plan addressing the redevelopment detention and water quality
requirements in accordance with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual is
required. A design and TIR have been submitted with the project that meet preliminary
requirements.
STREETS
The site has frontage on SW 7th Street, Hardie Avenue SW, and Rainier Avenue. All are
served with full width right-of-way and amenities.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
WATER
The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is based on the size of water meter
needed to service the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or
additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility
permit.
SANITARY SEWER
The Wastewater System Development Charge is also based on the size of water meter
needed to service the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or
additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility
permit.
SURFACE WATER
The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $4.405 per square foot of
new impervious surface area. Minimums may apply, and this fee is payable with a
construction or utility permit.
TRANSPORTATION
1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip, as calculated
by the ITE manual. Fees are due with the building permit for all commercial structures.
A traffic study supporting 608 additional daily trips was submitted and approved. The
Traffic mitigation fee is $45,600.00
2. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated and in compliance when
construction occurs on the site.
PLAN REVIEW - GENERAL
1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.
2. A construction permit is required for any utility work. When plans are complete, three
copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate,
application, and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the City Hall sixth floor counter.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the
representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of any
construction project.
2. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan, with any
recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation, shall
be submitted by the project Engineer of record to the Public Works Inspector.
Certification of the installation, maintenance, and proper removal of the erosion
control facilities is required prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
CC: Neil Watts
a �
City of Ren on Department of Community & Economic Dev opment
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C � ft�_�.h-�
COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 8, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010
APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND
PLANNER: Rocale Timmons
PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion
PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 13.6 acres
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet
LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an
additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail
space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the
northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing
surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a
total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian
pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately
13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located
within Urban Design District D_ Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th
Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way.. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element ofthe Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animols
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
Go "xk e -PTS ZA*M 3 q e'W to
B. POLICY -RELATED
C. CODE-RELATEE[ COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Li hVGiore
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact
or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
of Director or Authorized Representative
W
Date
z
tip' O DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
* ♦ DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 1, 2010
TO: Kayren Kittrick, Plan Review
Dave Pargas, Fire Department0
FROM: Rocale Timmons, Planning Division
SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF
Attached you will find a revised Drainage, Grading, Utility and Landscape Plans for the
Walmart Expansion. Changes were made to the drainage report which affected the
sizing of the proposed bio-swale, grading and utility plan. Please review these pians
instead of the plans that were routed on February 22, 2010. Comments are still due by
March 8, 2010. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, ext. 7219.
Thank you.
hAl \planninglcurrent plwminglprojects110-009.rocalelrevision memo.doc
i
~ S# 861
+ +
?T
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE
Project Name: Walrnart Short Plat �� P10 -4-A —
Project Address: 743 Rainier Avenue S
Contact Person: Jeff Chambers - PacLand
Permit Number: LUA09-157 1-Ulk }Q_ ppy
Project Description: 3 - lot Commercial SHPL
15,892 sq ft Store Expansion
Land Use Type: Method of Calculation:
❑Residential x ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition
X Retail x Traffic Study (calculations only)
❑ Non -retail ❑ Other
Calculation per 7th Edition: (813) Discount Superstore 49.21/1000 sq ft
15.892 x 49.21 = 782 ADT
782 x $75 = $58,650
Per Transpo: 608 ADT 0cmWe I- a aL701
608 x $75 = $45,600 -` 9-AwS�=
Transportation
Mitigation Fee:
Calculated by:
Date of Payment:
$45,600
K. Kittrick Date: 1/13/2010
City of Rendon Department of Community & Economic Del pment
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: .-
COMMENTS DUE: MARCH $, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010
APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND
PLANNER: Rocale Timmons
PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion
PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 13.6 acres
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet
LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an
additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail
space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the
northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing
surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a
total of 745 parking spaces_ As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian
pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately
13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located
within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th
Street, Rainier Ave 5, Hardie Ave S and 5 Grady Way.. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts impacts Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major information
Impacts impacts Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Li htJGlare
Recreation
Utilities
Trans ortotion
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
-Nfr s 401 '.'�
5w Go+.lMellarS DATES :I/A//jNol v
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
G CODE -RELATED
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and hove identified areas of proboble impact
or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal,
3 L,-)0)19
Dat
0 0
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
♦ DEVELOPMENT
'Na M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 1, 2010
TO: Kayren Kittrick, Plan Review vcs
Dave Pargas, Fire Department
FROM: Rocale Timmons, Planning Division
SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF
Attached you will find a revised Drainage, Grading, Utility and Landscape Plans for the
Walmart Expansion. Changes were made to the drainage report which affected the
sizing of the proposed bio-swale, grading and utility plan. Please review these plans
instead of the plans that were routed on February 22, 2010. Comments are still due by
March 8, 2010. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, ext. 7219.
Thank you.
Zf 8,ta
hAceftlanninglcurrent planninglprojects110-009.rocalelreaision memo.doc
CITY OF RENTON
� ° FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
d9
MEMORANDUM
0/
Ngo/
DATE: March 2, 2010
TO: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner
FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector
SUBJECT: Comments for Walmart Expansion
Environmental Impact Comments:
1. Fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of the additional
commercial space. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance.
Code Related Comments:
The preliminary fire flow is 5,000 gpm. Five fire hydrants are required. One within
150 -feet and four within 300 -feet of the buildings. Any existing hydrants used to
satisfy the requirements shall meet current fire code including 5 -inch storz fittings.
No objections to proposed fire hydrant relocations. It appears adequate fire flow and
fire hydrants already exist on site.
2. Approved fire sprinkler systems are required throughout the building. Separate plans
and permits required by the fire department.
3. An approved full detection, fully addressable automatic fire alarm system is required
throughout the entire building, both new and existing. Separate plans and permits are
required by the fire department.
4. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 -feet of all
points on the building. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20 -feet
unobstructed width with turning radius of 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside
minimum. Fire lane signage required for the on site roadways.
5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre -fire planning purposes.
See attached sheet for the format in which to submit your plans.
CT: ct
walmart
y e •
Renton Fire Department
PRE -FIRE PLANNING
In an effort to streamline our pre -fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of your construction project in one of the
following formats which we can then convert to VISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy,
ABC Flowcharter.aO
ABC Flowcharter.af2
Adobe Illustrator File.ai
AutoCad Drawin .dw
AutoCad Drawin .d =n
Computer Graphics Metafile.c gm
Corel Cli art Format,cmx
Core] DRAW! Drawing File Format.edr
Core] Flow_cfl
Encapsulated Postscript File.e s
Enhanced Metafile,emf
ICES Drawing File Format.i s
Graphics Interchange Format. if
Macintosh PICT Format.pct
Micro rafx Designer Ver 3, t.drw
Micro rafx Designer Ver 6,0.dsf
Microstation Drawin =.d n
Portable Network Graphics Format. of
Postscript File, s
—Tag Image File Format,tif
Text.txt
Text.csv
VISIO_vsd
Windows Bitma .bm
Windows Bitma .dib
Windows Metafile.wmf
Zsoft PC Paintbrush Bitma ex
A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Deve opment
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ,
COMMENTS DUE: MARCH S, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010
APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND
PLANNER: RocaleTimmons
PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion
PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 13.6 acres
I EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet
LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue 5
I PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an
additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail
space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the
northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing
surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a
total of 745 parking spaces_ As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian
pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately
13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located
within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th
Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way.. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable
Environment Minor Major
Impacts Impacts
More
information
Necessary
Earth
Air
water
Plants
tand/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Elementof the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Li htlGlare
Recreation
Utilities
Trons ortation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
1 p,ROD Feet
14,000 Feet
��-
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact
or areas where additional information is needed to propefly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: , 11 Z_
COMMENTS bur-: MARCH Sr 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010
APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND
PLANNER: Rocale Timmons
PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion
PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 13.6 acres
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet
LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an
additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail
space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the
northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing
surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north_ The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a
total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian
pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately
13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located
within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th
Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way.. There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
impacts impacts Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
LandlMoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cuftural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
M r7t? '4:�F_= I ibbu
$off a
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact
or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIkW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C .�( `[
COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 8, 2010 3:rn
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Z f3
DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 201053
APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND
PLANNER: Racaie Timmons
PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion
PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick -4 CD
SITE AREA: 13.6 acres
Z
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square Wt
LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S
Cn
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the
construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an
additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,040 square feet of additions to the retail
space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the
northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing
surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a
total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian
pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately
13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located
within Urban Design District D_ Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th
Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way._ There appear to be no critical areas on-site.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
0
46k-, c
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
We hove reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact
or areas where additional informat0u 5 needed to properly assess this proposal.
44�4�a tL/6
re of Director or Authorized Representative Date
0
0
u
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
WR
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 1, 2010
TO: Kayren Kittrick, Plan Review
Dave Pargas, Fire Department
FROM: Rocale Timmons, Planning Division
SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF
Attached you will find a revised Drainage, Grading, Utility and Landscape Plans for the
Wal mart Expansion. Changes were made to the drainage report which affected the
sizing of the proposed bio-swale, grading and utility plan. Please review these plans
instead of the plans that were routed on February 22, 2010. Comments are still due by
March 8, 2010. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, ext. 7219.
Thank you.
hacedlplanninglcurrent planninglprojects110-009.rocalelrevision memo.doc
Ar ! 0
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 22nd day of February, 2010, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing
Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist & PMT documents. This information was sent to:
Name
Representing
Agencies
See Attached
Jeff Chambers
Contact
Bonnell Family LLC (Peter Bonnell)
Owner
300' Surrounding Property Owners - NOA only
See attached
(Signature of Sender):
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
j SS
COUNTY OF KING j
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the
mentioned in the instrument.
Dated: Z'tik�
Notary (Print):
My appointment expires:
lot
C"
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
S3
ra +e yWalmart
Expansion
ro�ec x l "Ii
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
template - affidavit of service by mailing
� ` 0 •
AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING
(ERC DETERMINATIONS)
Dept. of Ecology *
WDFW - Larry Fisher*
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.
Environmental Review Section
1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201
Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer
PO Box 47703
Issaquah, WA 98027
39015 —172nd Avenue SE
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Auburn, WA 98092
WSDOT Northwest Region *
Duwamish Tribal Office *
Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
4717 W Marginal Way SW
Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
King Area Dev. Serv., M5-240
Seattle, WA 98106-1514
39015 172nd Avenue SE
PO Box 330310
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers *
KC Wastewater Treatment Division *
Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation*
Seattle District Office
Environmental Planning Supervisor
Attn: Gretchen Kaehler
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
Ms. Shirley Marroquin
PO Box 48343
PO Box C-3755
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Seattle, WA 98124
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
Boyd Powers *
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Serv.
City of Newcastle
City of Kent
Attn: SEPA Section
Attn: Steve Roberge
Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW
Director of Community Development
Acting Community Dev. Director
Renton, WA 98055-1219
13020 Newcastle Way
220 Fourth Avenue South
Newcastle, WA 98059
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Metro Transit
Puget Sound Energy
City of Tukwila
Senior Environmental Planner
Municipal Liaison Manager
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
Gary Kriedt
Joe Jainga
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431
PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W
Tukwila, WA 98188
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Believue, WA 98009-0868
Seattle Public Utilities
Real Estate Services
Attn: SEPA Coordinator
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900
PO Box 34018
Seattle, WA 98124-4018
*Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities
will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application.
template - affidavit of service by mailing
#--% - • 0
334040246509 192305905809
AZULE PROPERTIES LLC BONNELL FAMILY L L C
5411 154TH AVE SE C/A RENTON HONDA AUTO CT
BELLEVUE WA 98006 PO BOX 4040
RENTON WA 98057
192305910403
BONNELL FAMILY LLC
10047 MAIN ST #509
BELLEVUE WA 98004
182305921104
CCD ENTERPRISES INC
1555 132ND AVE NE STE B
BELLEVUE WA 98005
192305908506
GREENWELL/RENTON L.L.0
P 0 BOX 2399
KAILUA KONA HI 96745
192305906708
LANPHERE PROPERTIES I LLC
PO BOX 4040
RENTON WA 98057
192305902707
PIEROTTI LLC
16113 SE 170TH PL
RENTON WA 98058
192305906807
SOUND FORD INC
750 RAINIER AVE S
KENT WA 98055
192305904802
WALMART PROPERTY TAX DEPT
PO BOX 8050 MS 0555
BENTONVILLE AR 72712
182305903805
BRIDGE ROBERT
DBA KCB CO
PO BOX 1055
RENTON WA 98057
192305905304
D&C INVESTMENTS LLC
720 RAINIER AVE S
RENTON WA 98055
334040257001
HYFIVE INCORPORATED
4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N
RENTON WA 98056
192305906401
MCLENDON HARDWARE INC
715 LIND AVE SW
RENTON WA 98055
192305901709
RA MAC INC
4607 FOREST AVE SE
MERCER ISLAND WA 98040
192305904703
T & I LLC DBA RMC
900 LIND AVE SW
RENTON WA 98055
192305907300
BONNELL FAMILY LLC
C/A USW PETROL CORP #115
906 RANCHERO CONE10 BLVD
NEWBURY PARK CA 91320
334040259502
BROTHERTON CADILLAC
215 SW 12TH ST
RENTON WA 98055
182305925303
FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR
300 SW 7TH ST
RENTON WA 98055
182305925204
ICM 500 LLC
C/O ISH PROPERTIES INC
14900 INTERURBAN AVE S #210
TUKWILA WA 98168
192305906005
PDA L L C
6731 EAST MARGINAL WAY S
SEATTLE WA 98108
334040439500
SHERIDAN PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 935
RENTON WA 98057
192305910007
TENNESSEE GROUP L L C
MCLENDON HARDWARE INC
715 LIND AVE SW
RENTON WA 98055
Denis Law
Mayor
dL 4
Department of Community and Economic Development
February 22, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Attn: John Lefotu and Ramin Pazooki
Washington State
Department of Transportation
15700 Dayton Avenue North
PO Box 330310
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion
LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed is a copy of the TIA for the subject land use application along with a copy of
the proposed site plan.
The Environmental Review is scheduled for March 22, 2010. 1 would appreciate your
comments prior to the meeting, preferably by March 8, 2010, if possible to incorporate
any comments into the staff report.
If you have additional comments or concerns, you may either send them via mail or
email to rtimmons@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Ro le Timmons
Associate Planner
Enclosures
cc: Project File
Kayren Kittrick, City of Renton — Plan Review
Renton City Hall + 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. • rentonwa.gov
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date: April 15, 2010
To: Rocale Timmons
City of Renton — Planning Division
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
From: April Pust,4f
Re: Wal-Mart Store #2516-05 Expansion; Renton, WA
Revised Site Plan and Elevations
City Of Renta
r?ir)g Di,,,,o,n
QO
Remarks:
Please find enclosed the following items for the Walmart Store #2516-05 Site Plan Review:
• Five (5) Full -Size Revised Site Plans, dated April 14, 2010.
• One (1) Full -Size Revised Color Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010.
• One (1) Reduced Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010.
• One (1) Copy of the Reduced Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010.
• Three (3) Sets of Revised Elevations (not including Sheets 1 and 6), dated March 17, 2010.
If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact us at (206) 522-9510.
mgrCORrttrOl Am
2505 WESrLaKE AVE. N.
T 246.522.4510
sui,L 305
P 706.522AS344
mi.
SEAT TL E, WA 98104
WWW.PACLAND.COM
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date: April 15, 2010
To: Rocale Timmons
City of Renton — Planning Division
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
From: April Pust,4f
Re: Wal-Mart Store #2516-05 Expansion; Renton, WA
Revised Site Plan and Elevations
City Of Renta
r?ir)g Di,,,,o,n
QO
Remarks:
Please find enclosed the following items for the Walmart Store #2516-05 Site Plan Review:
• Five (5) Full -Size Revised Site Plans, dated April 14, 2010.
• One (1) Full -Size Revised Color Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010.
• One (1) Reduced Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010.
• One (1) Copy of the Reduced Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010.
• Three (3) Sets of Revised Elevations (not including Sheets 1 and 6), dated March 17, 2010.
If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact us at (206) 522-9510.
mgrCORrttrOl Am
assoffisrN
r
March 4, 2010
Ms. Rocaale Timmons, Associate Planner
City of Renton, Current Planning
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
41-5430-7219
RIS: Wal-Mart Store 42516
743 Rainier avenue South
Renton, WA 98057
425-227-0407
Project -9 0901033
[.sear Ms. Tinimans:
•
]City of Renton
Planning Division
MAR 0 4
HF,(C[UV1F_,D
Please: accept this letter for review and approval of the Walmart Store for rerusc arca (til sq ft
per 1.000 sq ft of gross building area).
In accordance with RMC 4-4-090 Refuse and Recyclables Standards, the Walrnart store is a
Commercial Retail with a self contained compactor and a recyclable area. In the paragraphs that
follow, I have described the use of the compactor in lieu of refuse area.
As shown on the Site Flan, there is a 12' x 90' recyclable area provided. "Ther proposed building
square.footage is 150, 244 square feet_ Per the Standards, the required recyclables area is 751
square feet and die recyclable area square footage provided is 1,080 square feet.
The required refuse area square footage is 1,502 .square feet. The proposed building, layout is
designed with a ail cu. yd. self contained vompactor, which is engineered for higli volurne usage.
The self contained compactor reduces refuse pick up white eliminating Mid seepage: and
minimizing odors, therebycmating more sanitary conditions. The proposed self contained
compactor meets the objectives, environmental protection and appearance intended by the
standards. 1 res*tful:ly request approval to use a self contained compactor instead of the
required refuse area.
"Iliank you for considering this request. If you have any questions regarding; this request, please
do not hesitate 10 COMACt MO. I look forward to hearing frorn you.
Sincerely,
f
Usunobun Osagie
Contact. Usatoobair 0sagie, 214-749-0626 ext.749 or etnai! uosagiO'rhaaio.cr m
1505 WESTLAKE AVE. N. T 2Q22,9510
SLATE 305 F 206.522.8344
5EATTLE, WA 98109 WWW.PACLAND.COM = s
February 25, 2010 HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Rocale Timmons Cf#Y Of
City of Renton — Planning Division planning �ntal7
Renton City Hall s,on
1055 S. Grady Way FES ��?U
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Store #2516-05; Renton, WA 'RecreVZ
Site Plan Review Revision Submittal
Dear Ms. Timmons:
We are pleased to submit on behalf of Walmart Stores Inc. the following revised documents
relating to the Walmart Site Plan Review for the expansion of Walmart Store #2516-05:
• Twelve (12) copies of the revised Grading and Drainage Plan, dated February 25,
2010.
• Five (5) copies of the revised Grading and Drainage Plan, dated February 25, 2010.
• Four (4) copies of the revised Drainage Report, dated February 25, 2010.
• Five (5) copies of the revised Landscape Plan, dated February 25, 2010.
• Five (5) copies of the revised Utility Plan, dated February 25, 2010.
• Two (2) reduced copies of each plan sheet, dated February 25, 2010.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding these revisions or the proposed
expansion.
Sincerely,
April K. Pust
Designer
City of Renton erton
LAND USE PE RMIT
MASTER APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
NAME: BONNELL FAMILY, LLC
CONTACT: PETER BONNELL
ADDRESS: 10047 MAIN STREET #509
CITY: BELLEVUE ZIP: 98004
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 453-1414
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME: JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E.
COMPANY (if applicable): PACLAND
1505 WESTLAKE AVE. N., SUITE 305
ADDRESS:
CITY: SEATTLE ZIP: 98109
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 522-9510
CONTACT PERSON
NAME: JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E.
COMPANY (if applicable): PACLAND
ADDRESS: 1505 WESTLAKE AVE. N., SUITE 305
CITY: SEATTLE ZIP: 98109
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS:
(206) 522-9510 JCHAMBERS@PACLAND.COM
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
WALMART #2516-05; RENTON EXPANSION
PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
743 RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH
RENTON, WA 98057
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
1923059048
1923059072
EXISTING LAND USE(S):
RETAIL, 1 RESTAURANT
PROPOSED LAND USE(S):
EXPANDED RETAIL
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION:
CC (COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR)
EAV (EMPLOYMENT AREA VALLEY)
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION (if applicable)
NIA
EXISTING ZONING:
CA (COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL)
IM (INDUSTRIAL MEDIUM
PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable):
N/A
SITE AREA (in square feet):
594,553 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
DEDICATED:
N/A
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS
EASEMENTS:
19,171 SF
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER
NET ACRE (if applicable) NIA
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NIA
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):N/A
S:',.Washington\Renton',,grimes',,Rainier Ave & 7th Expansionl4RepoilslFattitlemetttlProperty Owner Docs',.Land Use Pennit Master Application
(Si(e Plan Review).doc - I -
I PROJECT INFORMAT
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
NIA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): APPROX. 16,000 SF BUILDING
EXPANSION AND APPROX. 4,000 SF GARDEN CENTER
REDUCTION.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 134,352SF OF
EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (WALMART). 6,547 SF
RESTAURANT BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED.
NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if
applicable): APPROX. 16,000 SF OF NEW RETAIL
BUILDING AREA.
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW
PROJECT (if applicable): APPROXIMATELY 85 NEW AND
300 EXISTING FULL]PART-TIME EMPLOYEES.
A
ION (continIffed
PROJECT VALUE: TBD
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE
El AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO
❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA
sq. ft.
❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD
sq. ft.
❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION
sq. ft.
❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES
sq. ft.
❑ WETLANDS
sq. ft.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included
SITUATE IN THE _NW_ QUARTER OF SECTION _19_, TOWNSHIP _23_, RANGE _05—, IN THE
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
List all land use applications being applied for:
1. SITE PLAN REVIEW 3.
2. V-hf4foopy-44 (zic", 4.
Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 3
S!,Washington\Renton`,grimes',.Rainier Ave & 7th Expansion'%.4ReportslEntitlementiproperly Owner Docs,Land Use Permit Master Application (Site Plan Review).doc- 2 -
0 0
PROJECT INFORMATION !continue
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (Print Namels) - ,declare under penalty of perjunder the laws of the State of
Washington that l (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act
for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are
in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I certify that f know or have satisfactory evidence that "ki-
signed this instrument and acknowledge it to b hiOarftheir free and voluntary
act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the tttstrument.
(Sig tore of Owner/Representative)
Notarl Public in and for the State of W ington
(Signature of OwnerlRepreseniadve)
Notsiry Fpbllc
RUTHAW
A SCHAFER
My COMIMISS*N EXPIRES
o:. January, 201 1
Notary (Print) 7 t.A-
My appointment expires:
S:1WashinXknnlRentontgrirocs%Rainier Ave &, 71h Expansion4ReportsTcrfnil IlemslLand Use Pcrmit Masler Application (Site Plan Reviewl.doc -3 -
9
F-.�
PLANNING DIVISION
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
City of Renton
Pianning Division
FEB - 8 N10
HEMEN
LANO'U$E PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MOL1tFlg!D d()MMENTS
FtC11iPStdTS: BY: 6Y:
Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4
Pian t
Plat Name Reservation 4
Preapplication Meeting Summary 4
POlic Wnr U Ap rFC �€ lett x
Rehabilitation Plan 4
Seraeivrt�.Cl�ieil:,� ...
Site Plan 2AND 4
Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4
silsoirn°vr CAW, I wiga; Plan 4
Street Profiles 2
Tile R9"�Cri C$r Certifi ;ate 4
Topography Map 3
Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4
POan{ e ferl ! sigh 3uer#ay I�i�trioi Report d
Utilities Plan, Generalized 2
Wllarrtislitt�4r#''i, ! iri�l A
Wetlands Mitigation Pian, Preliminary 4
V1+et arxds epor ; llneaWn ¢
Wireless:
Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3
Inventory of Existing Sites z ANc3
Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3
Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 ANc 3
Map of Yew Area 2AND 3
Photosim ulations 2 AND 3
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: V` fit— - ►-' -f c � , a �
2. Public Works Plan Review Section
3. Building Section DATE: G
4. Planning Section
Q:1WES1PWOEVSERVAForms\Pianninglwaiverofsubmittalregs.xis OWN
D
0
0
PLANNING DIVISION
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
r:; WQ USE-pERMIT.SUOMIIiTAL 'WAWW:
::: MO[lVED
100MMENTS:
Calculations i
Gr�lote�¢ Rs -.for isplay4
Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4
r_ieEIl Q { 1�'Qf �d Dedilw griffon
Density Worksheet 4
prair"pge 00hl*'bI Plant
Drainage Report z
. ... ...... -. ......
Elev,AW4 ; ArcWeatural3AW4
Environmental Checklist a
ET 6iir -06.6 er "f-'Reeorded dpy) 4
Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4
•
Plans 3AH04
�Floor
-
Grading Plan, Conceptual
Gr0dir*.P!a9,.Detalle :z
Habitat Data Report 4
lrrrjirc�r�ierit:l�rrai. � -
•.
.
Irrigation Pian 4
KIrkk Ass�t'r: Map Iridir.0ing:iSit0 4'
Landscape Plan, Conceptual
Legal Description 4
> � t of t Enrorit d�rr lNoper4y ownm 4
Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4
Map 4.l=xastir� �!�'�pndilionsg
Master Application Form 4
�liortur-iii i�a�r� (grid per-i�orri�rnen€�. i .
•
Neighborhood Detail Map 4
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: _�/�I .►— �-'� �� sit Dtj
2. Public Warks Plan Review Section
3. Building Section DATE: _ i z A 0 9
4. Planning Section
Q:1WESTWV)EVSERVTormslPlanninglvmiverofsubmiW(egs.xls pyps
PREAPPLICATION MEETING FORPityof"�Pt
on
WAL -MA RT EXPANSIONnnlng DrvislQ
SW Grady and Rainer Ave
CITY of RENTON
Department of Community and Economic
Current Planning Division
PRE09-466
November 24, 2409
Contact Information:
Planner: Rocale TlmmDns Phone: 425.430.7219
Public Works Reviewer: Kayren Kittrick Phone: 425.430.7299
Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Phone: 425.430,7023
Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430,7290
FEB - & 21110
necew
Development
Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference.
Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who
work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply
for land use and/or environmental permits.
Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call
and schedule an appointment with the project manager (planner) to have it pre-
screened before making all of the required copies.
The pre -application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided
on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of
review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly
amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in
effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary
is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g.,
Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department
of Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works
Administrator and City Council).
R EI COEHI tVOE D
Nov 16 2009
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
Dov 17 29119
RECEIVED
DATE:
TO. Construction Services, Economic Development, Eire Prevention,
Plan Review, Project Planner
FROM; Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director
SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application:
LOCATION:
PREAPP NO, a cc, C,
A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled forrk Thursday,
at to; Oo { AM ❑pM, in one of the 61h floor conference rooms. if this meeting is
scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11:00 AM
to allow time to prepare for the 11.00 AM meeting.
Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the
applicant. You viii not need to do a thorough "permit level" review at this time. Note
only major issues that must be resolved prior to formal land use and/or building permit
application submittal.
Plan Reviewer assigned is
Please submit your written comments to (Planner) at
least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you.
H:;Division.s\Develop_ser\Dev & P1an.ingiTeinplatelPreapp2 Revised 1-45
�yo CITY OF RENTON
d FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 24, 2009
TO: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner
FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector
SUBJECT: Preliminary Comments for Walmart Expansion
1. The preliminary fire flow is 5,000 gpm. Five fire hydrants are required. One within
150 -feet and four within 300 -feet of the buildings. Any existing hydrants used to
satisfy the requirements shall meet current fire code including 5 -inch storz fittings.
No objections to proposed fire hydrant relocations. It appears adequate fire flow and
fire hydrants already exist on site.
2. Fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of the additional
commercial space. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance.
3. Approved fire sprinkler systems are required throughout the building. Separate plans
and permits required by the fire department.
4. An approved full detection, fully addressable automatic fire alarm system is required
throughout the entire building, both new and existing. Separate plans and permits are
required by the fire department.
5. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 -feet of all
points on the building. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20 -feet
unobstructed width with turning radius of 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside
minimum. Fire lane signage required for the on site roadways.
5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre -fire planning purposes.
See attached sheet for the format in which to submit your plans.
cr:ct
walmart
0
Renton Fire Department
PRE -FIRE PLANNING
0—
In_
In an effort to streamline our pre -fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of your construction project in one of the
following formats which we can then convert to VISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy,
ABC Flowcharter.aS
ABC Flowcharter.aQ
Adobe Illustrator File_ai
AutoCad Drawin .dw
Autocad DrawingAgn
Cop22uter Gra hics Metafile.c m
Corel Cli art Format.cmx
Corel DRAW! Drawing File Format.edr
Corel Flow.cfl
Encapsulated Postscript File.e s
Enhanced Metaiile.emf
IGES Drawing File Format.i s
Graphics Interchange Forrnat. if
Macintosh PICT Format. ct
Micro rafx Desi er Ver 3.1.drw
Micrografx Designer Ver 6.0.dsf
Microstation Drawing.dgn
Portable Network Gra hics Format. of
Postscript File. s
Ta& Image File Format.tif
Text.txt
Text. csv
VISIO.vsd
Windows Bitma .bm
Windows Bitma .dib
Windows Metafile.wmf
Zsoft PC Paintbrush Bitma cx
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
ti fl
DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 18, 2009
TO: Rocale Timmons, Planner
FROM: Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor �e
SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments
Walmart Expansion
Pre 09-066 Address: Rainier/Grady
NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is
preliminary and non-binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence
by official city decision -makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based
on site planning and other design changes r"uired by City staff or made by the
applicant. The following comments are based on the pre -application submittal made
to the City of Renton by the applicant.
WATER
1. The site is currently served by the Renton water utility.
2. There is an existing 12 -inch looped main on the site serving the existing building.
3. The project site is located in the 196 Water Pressure Zone.
4. Fire flow availability to the site is approximately 5600 gpm from the existing
12 -inch main with the controlling factor being the limit on velocity in mains to 8
feet/second.
5. The static water pressure is approximately 75 psi.
6. Five fire hydrants are required for this proposed building (1 within 150 ft. of
building, 4 within 300 ft) and all hydrants counted towards service for this
building require a 5" Storz adaptor (quick disconnect fitting).
7. Cross connection control is required on the downstream side of the domestic
meter for buildings greater than 30 feet in freight. Additional regulations may
apply.
8. In addition to the fire hydrant(s) a sprinkler/alarm system is required for the
proposed development requiring a separate meter sized appropriately.
9. A Water System Development Charge is based on the size of water meter
needed to service the development. Only triggered with a change in meter.
10. An additional fire service permit and fee is applicable for fire sprinkler supply
connection.
PRE 09-066 PR Comments
SANITARY SEWER
I. The building is currently served by a private on-site system connecting to a City
of Renton line directly connected to the Metro line.
2, If a commercial unit is designated to serve food, a grease trap or interceptor
meeting the approval of the Wastewater Utility is required.
3. A minimum 6 -inch side sewer connection to service the building is required.
4. The Sewer System Development Charge may be triggered and determined by
any addition to the water meter size.
SURFACE WATER
1. The site is located in the Black River drainage system and is currently connected
to the existing system in S. 7th Street.
2. The property has an existing 12 -inch drainage system on-site which is proposed
to be expanded and revised. A report and calculations showing the proposed
site redevelopment does not trigger flow control standards must be submitted
with the formal application.
3. A preliminary drainage plan addressing the redevelopment detention and water
quality requirements in accordance with the 2005 King County Surface Water
Design Manual (or 2009 KCSWDM if adopted by the City of Renton by project
submittal date) is required.
4. The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square
foot of new impervious surface area.
TRANSPORTATION
1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip as
calculated by the ITE manual for the expansion only.
2. Limited traffic study may be required if development generates less than 100
ADT per day. Turning movements and anticipated truck access with the
proposed driveways may need review.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1_ A construction permit will be required for all utility work.
2. Staff member assigned to contact for further questions and project review:
Arneta Henninger, 425-430-7298.
T
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AN
10);
N� M E M O R A N D U BVI
DATE: November 19, 2009
TO: Pre -Application Fife No, PRE 09-066
FROM. Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner {425) 430-7219
SUBJECT: Wal-Mart Expansion — SW Grady Way and Rainier Ave S
General
We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above -referenced development
proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre -application
submittals made to the City of Renton by the opplicant and the codes in effect on the date of review, The
applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or
concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development
Administrator, Development Services Director, Public Works Administrator, and City Council). Review
comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City
staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton
Municipal Code_ The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the
Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or on the City's website www.rentonwa.gov
Project Proposal
The subject property is located on the west side of Rainier Ave 5 on the south side of SW Grady Way. The
proposal includes the expansion of the existing 134,352 square foot Wal-Mart retail store to a total area of
150,244 square feet. Additions along the northern and eastern facades of the existing structure make up
the approximately 16,000 square foot expansion. The proposal also includes an expansion of the surface
parking lot in the amount of 3.1 acres which includes 165 parking stalls to be used by the retail store. The
proposal includes the elimination of 7 existing parking stalls resulting in approximately 776 parking stalls to
be provided on site. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is also proposing associated
landscaping, pedestrian pathways and the use of two existing access points. The project site is located
within the Commercial Arterial zoning designation and within Design District V_ In addition the applicant
is proposing the subdivision of the two existing parcels into 3 lots whereby the Columbia Bank, Jimmy
Mac's and the proposed Wal-Mart store would be located on separate lots. Access to the site is proposed
via seven existing curb cuts along Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave SW, SW 7"' St and SW Grady Way,
Current Use: There is an existing 134,352 square foot structure, used by Wal-Mart, located on the eastern
portion of the site that is proposed to remain.
Zoning: The property is located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) land use designation and the
Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation. Big -Box retail use is outright permitted within the CA zone_
The property is also located within urban Design District `D', and therefore subject to additional design
elements Proposals should have unique, identifiable design treatment in terms of landscaping, building
design, signage, street furniture, paving, and street width.
Wal-Mart Expansion
November 23, 2009
Page 2 of 6
Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-120A, "Development Standards for
Commercial Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "CA standards"
herein). A copy of these standards is included herewith.
Minimum Lot Size Width and Depth — The minimum lot size in the CA zone is 5,000 square feet. It appears
that the three lots, after the short plat process, would comply with the minimum lot size requirement. The
applicant will be required to demonstrate that there are at least two existing legal lots otherwise the
applicant will be required to apply for a Short Plat or a Binding Site Plan. There are no minimum
requirements for lot width or depth within the CA zone at this location.
Lot Coverage — The CA zone allows a maximum building coverage of 65 percent, or 75 percent if parking is
provided within a building or within an on-site parking garage. 150,244 square foot footprint is proposed
on the 13 acre site resulting in a building lot coverage of approximately 27 percent. The project proposal
appears to comply with lot coverage requirements_
Setbacks — Setbacks are the distance between the building and the property line or any private access
easement. Setback requirements in the CA zone are as follows: 10 feet minimum for the front yard but
may be reduced to zero feet through the site plan review process provided blank walls are not located
within the reduced setback; and a 15 feet maximum front yard setback, There are no minimum rear or side
yard setbacks required in the CA zone. The proposed Wal-Mart building does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback requirement. However, as the situation is already existing and the
proposed additions would bring the structure closer to conformity a variance would not be required. The
Columbia Bank and Jimmy Mac's restaurant would comply would the setback requirements of the zone
after the recording the short plat.
Gross Floor Area — There is no minimum requirement for gross floor area.
Building Height — Maximum building height in the CA zone is 50 feet or 60 feet for mixed-use building with
commercial on the 1" floor. It appears the proposed structure would be a 1 -story building however
compliance with the height requirements of the zone could not be verified as elevations were not provided
with the pre -application materials. Building elevations and detailed descriptions of elements and building
materials are required with your site plan review submittal.
Screening — Screening must be provided for all surface -mounted and roof top utility and mechanical
equipment. The site plan application will need to include elevations and details for the proposed methods
of screening.
Refuse and Recycling Areas — Refuse and recycling areas need to meet the requirements of RMC 4-4-090,
"Refuse and Recyclables Standards" (enclosed)_ For retail developments a minimum of 5 square feet per
every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclable deposit areas and a
minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse
deposit areas with a total minimum area of 100 square feet.
Based on the proposal for the 155,244 square feet of retail building; a minimum area of 776 square feet of
recyclables and 1,552 square feet of refuse area would be required.
The location and size of the refuse and recyclable area could not be verified with the pre -application
materials.
Landscaping — Except for critical areas, all portions of the development area not covered by structures,
required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought -resistant
vegetative cover. The development standards require that all pervious areas within the property
boundaries be landscaped. The minimum on-site landscape width required along street frontages is 10
feet, except where reduced through the site plan development review process. The applicant would be
Wal-Mart Expansion
November 23, 2009
Page 3 of 6
required to provide a minimum 10 foot landscape strip along Rainier Ave South, Hardie Ave SW and SW 7`h
Street or request to reduce the landscaping as part of the application for site plan review.
Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for further general and specific landscape
requirements (enclosed)- It appears that the proposal complies with the development standards in the CA
zone for landscaping. However, please refer to the Design District Guidelines for additional landscaping
requirements. A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis meeting the requirements in RMC 4-
8-120D.12, shall be submitted at the time of application for Site Alan Review.
Tree Preservation — A tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall
be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at
least 5 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed parking would be sited to accommodate
preservation of significant trees that would be retained. If the trees cannot be retained, they may be
replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a rate of six to one.
Fences — If the applicant intends to install any fences as part of this project, the location must be
designated on the landscape plan. A fence detail should also be included on the pian as well.
Parking — The following ratios would be applicable to the site:
Use
Square Footag ofB1CiQ3
Ratio
Required Spaces
Big Box Retail
150,244
Min: 4 spaces / 1,000 5F
Max: 5 spaces / 1,000 SF
Min: 601
Max: 751
Information regarding the net square footage of the proposed building was not provided; therefore the
numbers provided for required spaces are likely to be higher than the parking spaces required/allowed
for the proposal. Net square footage is the total of all floor area of a building, excluding stairwells, elevator
shafts, mechanical equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading, and all floors below the ground
floor, except when used for human habitation or service to the public. The applicant is proposing a total
of 776 parking stalls which exceeds the number of parking stalls allowed by Code even with the use of
gross square footage.
Where practical difficulties exist in meeting parking requirements, the applicant may request a modification
from these standards. The applicant will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide
detailed parking information (i.e. stall and drive aisle dimensions) and calculations of the subject site and
the overall campus use. However, due to the shortage of proposed landscaping on site, it would be
challenging for staff to grant a modification to exceed the number of stalls.
It should be noted that the parking regulations specify standard stall dimensions of 9 feet x 20 feet,
compact dimensions of 8Y2 feet x 16 feet, and parallel stall dimensions of 9 feet x 23 feet. ADA accessible
stalls must be a minimum of 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in
width for van accessible spaces. Those stalls that do not meet the stall dimension standard are existing
and as the proposal does not increase their non -conformity a parking modification would not be
necessary for them to remain as is. The appropriate amount of ADA accessible stalls, based on the total
number of spaces, must be provided. If 776 stalls are provided a total of 16 ADA accessible stalls would be
required.
Parking lots shall also be oriented to minimize their visual impact on the site. No more than six stalls may
be consecutively clustered without an intervening landscaped area a minimum of jive feet in width and
the length of the stall. The proposal should be revised to depict intervening landscaping, every six stalls,
within the new parking areas. Otherwise, the applicant would be required to apply for and have granted
a parking modification. If additional landscaping was sited to buffer the surface parking on the exterior of
the site a modification for intervening landscaping would be considered.
Wal-Mart Exparsicr
November 23, 2009
Page 4 of 6
Finally, surface parking lots with more than 100 stalls shall also provide a minimum of 35 square feet per
parking space. Therefore 27,160 square feet of landscaping would be required on-site. It appears the
applicant is proposing a total of 26,134 square feet of landscaping. The proposal should be revised to
include additional landscaping areas. Otherwise, the applicant would be required to apply for and have
granted a parking modification. However, due to the excess of parking on site, it would be challenging to
grant a modification.
Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-D70 and RMC 4-4-080F.7) for further general and specific
landscape requirements (enclosed). The applicant will be required to provide a Parking, Lot Coverage,
Landscaping Analysis as defined in RMC 4-8-120.D.16 for the site.
Access — Driveway widths are limited by the driveway standards, in RMC 4-4D$0l.
Pedestrian Access — A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street, in
order to provide direct, clear and separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building entries and
internally from buildings to abutting retail properties. The site plan provided did not depict pedestrian
connections. It appears that the proposal complies with the development standards in the CA zone for
Pedestrian Access. However, please refer to the Design District Guidelines for additional pedestrian
access requirements.
Signage — Only one freestanding business sign (restricted to monument/ground signs only) is permitted per
street frontage, however pole signs are not permitted within the CA zone. However, the applicant would
be able to retain the existing legal non -conforming sign as is. Each new sign shall not exceed an area
greater than one and one-half square feet for each lineal foot of property frontage that is occupied by the
business and shall be restricted to monument/ground signs only. In no case shall the sign exceed a total of
300 square feet (150 square feet per face). in addition to the permitted freestanding sign, wall signs with a
copy area not exceeding 20% of the fagade, to which it is applied, are also permitted.
Building Design Standards — Compliance with Urban Design Regulations, District 'D; is required. See the
attached checklist and Renton Municipal Code section 4-3-100. The following bullets are a few of the
standards outlined in the regulations which are required to be incorporated into the site design as
proposed. See RMC 4-3-100 and the attached checklist for all applicable standards and guidelines.
• Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new
buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least
one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding
uses:
a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order
to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards;
b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels;
c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or
d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development.
• All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact
Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking
areas.
Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel.
Wal-Mart Expansion
November 23, 2009
Page 5 of 6
Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or
texture from adjacent paving materials
Landscaping
• Surface parking areas shall he screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from
streets (see RMC 4-4-0801-7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in
width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b).
• Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree
species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at
planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root bail)
respectively.
• A parking stall is not located more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
• All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes
parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration,
subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3d) according to the following formula:
11 of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space
• To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included:
(a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures f
rom the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard;
(b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving;
(c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on
the ground; and
(d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60
square feet of plaza area or open space.
• All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet
(40')_
• Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along
the facade's ground floor.
• Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear
frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated
pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors.
• Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof
profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f):
(a) Extended parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
• Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or
textural changes.
Wal-Mart Expansion
November 23, 2009
Page 6 of 6
Critical Areas
There appears to be no critical areas on site. If there is any indication of critical areas on the site, this must
be disclosed to the City prior to development and appropriate studies must be undertaken.
Environmental Review
The proposed project would be subject to Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as
the proposed project exceeds several thresholds. Therefore, an environmental checklist is a submittal
requirement, An environmental determination will be made by the Renton Environmental Review
Committee. This determination is subject to appeal by either the project proponent, by a citizen of the
community, or another entity having standing for an appeal.
Permit Requirements
The proposal would require Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Environmental (SEPA) Review and Short
Plat approval. The applications could be reviewed concurrently in an estimated time frame of 12 weeks
once a complete application is accepted. The Site Pian Review application fee is $2,000. The application
fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) is $1,400. The application fee for Short Plat would be an
additional $1,400. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the
attached handouts.
In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction, building and sign permits would be
required. The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits,
but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods.
Impact Mitigation Fees: in addition to the applicable building and construction fees, the following
mitigation fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits.
♦ A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per new daily trip attributed to the
development;
+ A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per square foot of new commercial building area.
Expiration: Upon site plan approval, the site plan approval is valid for two years with a possible two-year
extension. Upon preliminary short plat approval, the preliminary short plat approval is valid for two years
with a possible one-year extension.
A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review.
171
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Walmart Site Plan Review
Renton, King County, Washington
Project Description
10 City of Renton
PIPTinina Division
FFa - s '00
HEMMED
MED
This project proposes to expand the existing Walmart store, which is located at 743 Rainier
Avenue South, in Renton, Washington. The expansion would increase the building by
approximately 16,000 square feet and decrease the Garden Center by approximately 4,000
square feet. The proposed expansion areas are located on the northern and eastern faces of
the existing building. Additional parking will be provided for a total of approximately 745
stalls.
In addition, the total area leased by Walmart is proposed to increase from 9.9 acres to a
total of 13.65 acres. The Walmart store will be located on Lot 1 of the proposed Walmart
Short Plat along with the vacant Billy McHale's, which is proposed to be demolished. The
existing bank will be situated on its own lot (Lot 2 of the proposed Walmart Short Plat), as
will the existing Jimmy Mac's restaurant (Lot 3 of the proposed Walmart Short Plat).
Permits
This project will require the following permits:
• City of Renton SEPA Determination
• City of Renton Short Plat Review
• City of Renton Short Plat Recording
• City of Renton Site Plan Review
• City of Benton Building Permit
• Washington State Department of Ecology NPDES Permit
• Sewer Permit
• Water Permit
• City of Renton Right -of -Way Permit(s) (as needed)
Short Plat (submitted for Short Plat Review on 12/3012009)
The proposed Short Plat will create three new lots. The existing Parcels 1 and 2 will
become proposed Lots 1, 2, and 3. Lot 1 will be 13.65 acres and will contain the existing
Walmart store and expansion. The vacant Billy McHale's restaurant would be demolished
prior to construction of the expansion. A Parking and Landscape Analysis has been
completed for Lot 1 under the expanded conditions.
Buildings
The existing Walmart consists of an approximately 134,000 square feet building as well as
a 9,000 square foot Garden Center. The expansion proposes to increase the building by
approximately 16,000 square feet and decrease the Garden Center by approximately 4,000
square feet.
Site
The project site (including all access locations) consists of several parcels, which include
CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Industrial Medium) zoning. No re -zoning is proposed.
Walmart Store #2516-05 Expansion
Renton, Washington
February &, 2010
0 9
The Comprehensive Plan designations include CC (Commercial Corridor) and EAV
(Employment Area Valley). Current uses include a bank to the north, retail and restaurants
to the northeast and east, and a car dealership to the south and west. The site does not
contain any wetlands, water features, or steep slopes.
Parking
The existing parking stalls on-site are 9'x18', which does not meet the current City of
Renton Code of 9'x20'. By maintaining the existing dimensions, we are able to retain most
existing landscape islands with mature trees and avoid significant changes to the existing
drive aisles. New parking areas will contain 9'x20' stalls.
The proposed parking ratio is 5.0/1,000sf of building area, which is in compliance with the
City or Renton's maximum parking ratio for big -box retail stores.
Soils
The site consists of native fine-grained soils which are generally soft to soft to medium stiff
and compressible, and native granular soils which range from loose to very dense.
Grading on the project site will be minimal and limited to the north and east sides of the
existing store. Earthwork quantities will be approximately 9,500 CY of fill and 9,500 CY of
haul -out.
Utility Infrastructure
The existing Walmart site is served by public water and sewer through the City of Renton.
These services will be extended and relocated as necessary on-site to accommodate the
proposed store expansion. Services to the existing restaurant to be demolished will be
removed or abandoned in place.
Existing on-site stormwater runoff from the roof and paved surfaces will continue to be
collected and conveyed via a system of curb, gutter, catch basins and underground
detention/conveyance pipes. Runoff is conveyed to the existing biofiltration swale, located
northeast of the store, for water quality treatment or directly to the City stormwater system
in SW Seventh Street. An area equivalent to the new pollution generating impervious
surfaces will be routed to the proposed bioswale, located north of the expansion area for
water quality treatment. The treated runoff will then be conveyed to the existing bioswale,
and subsequently into the City of Renton storm system.
Power and gas are provided by Puget Sound Energy and phone services are provided by
Qwest West.
Site Lighting
The existing site lighting consists of forty (40) foot lights, which are non-compliant with
current City of Renton Code. However, in order to maintain consistency with the existing
lighting, on the Walmart parcel as well as the surrounding lots, the proposed lights will
also be forty (40) feet in height. Approximately three new light poles with fixtures will be
needed in the expansion area.
Walmart Store #2516-05 Expansion
Renton, Washington
February 8, 2010
As requested by the City, decorative pedestrian lighting will be added along the pedestrian
connection in front of the store. Approximately three 12-14' pedestrian lights are
proposed.
Access
Access to the site is provided from SW Seventh Street (three full accesses) to the north,
Hardie Ave SW (full access) to the east, Rainier Avenue (right-in/right-out access) to the
east and SW Grady Way (full access) to the south. All access points will be shown and
identified on the Site Plan. A Traffic Impact Analysis has been completed and the results
show no significant impacts due to the proposed project.
Landscape Design
The proposed landscape areas exceed the 35 sf per stall requirement, and the layout is
focused primarily on retaining the existing mature trees (greater than 6" in diameter). In
order to accomplish this, the existing location and spacing of the landscape islands had to
be maintained where possible. However, the widths of most islands were increased. In
addition, the project proposes to add perimeter landscaping along the SW Seventh Street
and Hardie Avenue frontages.
Approximately 15 mature trees will need to be removed as a result of the proposed
improvements. The sizes and types are as follows.
• Nine six-inch deciduous trees.
• Three six-inch coniferous trees.
• Two eight -inch coniferous trees.
• One twelve -inch coniferous tree.
This represents approximately 15% of the total existing mature trees on-site. See the Tree
Inventory Plan (TI -1) for locations of trees to be retained and removed.
Walmart Store #2516-05 Expansion
Renton, Washington
February 8, 2010
City of Renton UJI.Y "' - -T
�' ,,Ar, irtq Dtvtston
TREE RETENTION
WORKSHEET
1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter' on project site: 1. 99 trees
2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation:
Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 0 trees
Trees in proposed public streets 0 trees
Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts 0 trees
Trees in critical area S3 and buffers 0 trees
Total number of excluded trees: 2. 0 trees
3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. 99 trees
4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by:
0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8
0.1 in all other residential zones
0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 5 trees
5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing5 to retain 4:
5. 84 trees
6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6.
(If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required).
7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches:
7.
8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement:
(Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8.
9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6:
(if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number)
M
' Measured at chest height.
trees
inches
inches
per tree
trees
2 Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or
certified arborist, and approved by the City.
Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes. are defined in Section 4-3-050 of
the Renton Municipal Code (RMC).
4. Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers.
The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of
trees per RMC 4-4-1301-17a
e. Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that
are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement.
5:'t4'ashingtrnr,Rcutnnl�rimcsiRainicr Ave & 7th Fxpansion,4RcportsTennit hemsUree Retention Worksheet.doc 12108
#2516-05; Renton Walmart Expansion
Site Plan Review - Landscape/Parking Analysis
Site Areas Area
Existing Parcel 1 Lease Area 9.9 acres
Proposed Lot 1 Lease Area 13.6 acres
Lot Analysis (existing)
Gross Lot Square Footage
594,553 sf
Access Easement Square Footage
19,171 sf
Net Lot Square Footage
575,382 sf
Existing Impervious Surface
515,257 sf
Existing Undeveloped Area
29,688 sf
Existing Building Square Footage
140,896 sf
Existing Garden Center Square Footage
9,186 sf
% of Lot Covered by Existing Building(s)
23.70%
Area of Existing Pavement
347,205 sf
Area of Existing Sidewalk
17,032 sf
Total Area of Existing Landscaping
50,546 sf
Proposed Impervious Surface
528,863 sf
Proposed Undeveloped Area
0 sf
Proposed Building Demo Area
6,547 sf
Proposed Building Square Footage
150,244 sf
Proposed Garden Center Square Footage
4701 sf
% of Lot Covered by Proposed Building(s)
25.30%
Area of Proposed Pavement
344,001 sf
Area of Proposed Sidewalk
29,917 sf
Total Area of Proposed Landscaping
65,690 sf
Parking Analysis
Minimum Stalls Permitted (4.011,000 so
601
Maximum Stalls Permitted (5.0!1,000 sf)
751
Number of Parking Stalls Provided
745
Number of ADA Stalls Required
15
Number of ADA Stalls Provided
19
Parking Stall Counts are Compliant
Yes
Parking Stall Dimensions (in existing areas)
9' x 18'
Parking Stall Dimensions (in new areas)
9' x 20'
*Compact Parking Stall Dimensions
8.5' x 16'
* 2' of Additional Overhang
City of Renton
;--'tanning Division
FEB - 8 201
ALeXEMED
. C'ty of Renton
planning Division
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION
Walmart Site Plan Review
Renton, King County, Washington
Proposed Construction Dates
FED - S 2018
[ CEQVED
This project proposes to expand the existing Walmart store, which is located at 743 Rainier
Avenue South, in Renton, Washington. The expansion would increase the building by
approximately 16,000 square feet and decrease the Garden Center by approximately 4,000
square feet. Construction of the store expansion is proposed to begin in late Winter 2011
with completion in Winter 2013.
Hours and Days of Operation
Proposed construction hours and days will comply with the City of Renton Municipal
Code Section 4-4-030. These hours include Monday — Friday 7:00am — 8:00pm, Saturday
9:00am — 8:00pm, and no work on Sundays. Haul hours will be Monday — Friday between
8:30am — 3:30pm. If special construction or haul hours will be necessary, approval by the
Development Services Division will be requested ahead of time.
Proposed Hauling/Transportation Routes
The primary haul route onto the project site will be via SW Seventh Street, north of the
existing Walmart store.
Measures to Reduce Impacts
This project will utilize erosion control measures and BMPs to minimize the effects of dust
and erosion during demolition and construction. In order to minimize transportation
impacts, traffic control measures such as flaggers and signage will be utilized. Construction
and hauling will take place during regular business hours, so noise will not be an issue.
Special Hours
The project does not propose construction or hauling during special hours.
Preliminary Traffic Control Plan
The proposed expansion will utilize flaggers and traffic control signage in order to
minimize the impacts on localized traffic.
Walmart Store #2516-05 Expansion
Denton, Washington
January 28, 2010
I
0
PLANNING DIVISION
0
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTN�
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231.
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
pFitk
Of
poiv,,316- I or,
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.210 RCW, requires all governmental
agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable
significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is
Lo provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to
reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide
vlhether an EIS is required.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS:
'his environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of
your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly,
Lvdith the most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In
cnost cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project
pians without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question
does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers
to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as toning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental
agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a
period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help
describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this
checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably
related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered
"does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT
ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the
references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be
read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
- 1 - 06108
S:1Wash"ionlRenlonlgrimes4Rainier Ave & 7th ExpansienWRepoft%EnliUementlSEPA11F251"5 SEPA Checklist 2008-12-15.dot
0
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Walmart #2516-05; Renton Expansion
2. Name of applicant:
Bonnell Family, LLC and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
c/o PACLAND — Seattle
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Jeff Chambers, P.E.
1505 Westlake Ave. N. Suite 305
Seattle, WA 98109
(206) 522-9510
4. Date checklist prepared:
October 28, 2009
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Renton
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
This project represents an expansion of the existing Walmart store #2516-05.
Project access and infrastructure will be constructed upon permit issuance. Timing
and phasing will be dependent on market conditions.
Estimated Construction Start: 2011
Estimated Project Completion: 2013
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
This project represents an expansion of the existing Walmart store #2516-05. This
includes parking lot and drive aisle changes made necessary by the shopping center
layout. Access locations will remain the same unless changes are required by The City
of Renton.
S. List; any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
■ Traffic Impact Analysis; prepared byTranspo Group
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; prepared by Terracon
• Phase If Environmental Site Assessment; to be prepared by Terracon
• Wetland/Biology Assessment; prepared by The Watershed Company
• Storm Water Management Report; prepared by PACLAND
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; to be prepared by PACLAND
- 2 - asro9
5.1WashingtonlRenton{grimesftinier Ave $ 7th ExpansionWReporls%EnlidementlSEPAW2516.05 SEPA checklist 2009-12-75.doc
0 0
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
None.
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
• City of Renton SEPA Determination
• City of Renton Short Plat Review
• City of Renton Short Plat Recording
• City of Renton Site Plan Review
• City of Renton Building Permit
• Washington State Department of Ecology NPDES Permit
• Sewer Permit
+ Water Permit
+ City of Renton Right -of -Way Permit(s)
* King County Health Department
• King County Sewer Treatment
These permits will require approval by the City of Renton Planning Division, King
County, or the Department of Ecology.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site.
This project proposes an approximate 16,000 SF expansion of the existing Walmart
store, to an approximate total size of 150,500 sf. The garden center will be reduced by
approximately 4,000 square feet to a new total of approximately 5,000 square feet.
Additional parking and landscaping will also be constructed on the project site. The
existing lease area under ownership of Bonnell Family LLC will be increased in size
from approximately 10 acres to approximately 13.6 -acres.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
township, and range if known. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide
the range or boundaries of the site(s). provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity
map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans
required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans
submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
743 Rainier Avenue South, Renton, King County, Washington. NW Quarter of Section
16, Township 23 N, Range 5 E.
.3- 06109
S:LWashinglonlRenionlgrimesMRainier Ave $ 7th Expansions 4ReportslEnUtlemenASEPA19251505 SEPA Checkllsl2009-12-15.doe
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
Flat (Existing shopping center with parking).
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?)
Average slope across the site is approximately 3%. The steepest slope in a
landscape area is approximately 20%.
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland.
The site consists of native fine-grained soils which are generally soft to soft to
medium stiff and compressible, and native granular soils which range from
loose to very dense.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? if so, describe.
Site is underlain by soft to medium stiff silts, Soils will compact under static
loads; building foundation and columns may be supported by special
foundations if further geotechnical investigations require such a design.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Grading on the project site will be minimal and limited to the north and east
sides of the existing store. Earthwork quantities will be approximately 9500 CY
of fill and 9500 CY of haul -out.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Temporary erosion could occur prior to site stabilization. However, temporary
erosion control BMR measures will be implemented to minimize short term
construction impacts in accordance with the City of Renton and Department of
Ecology standards.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 95%.
WE
S:1WashingtonlRentonlgrimeslRainier Ave & 7th ExpansionWReponsl£nlillemen145EPAW2516-05 SEPA Checklist 2009-12-15.dOC
06!09
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth,
if any:
Temporary erosion could occur prior to site stabilization. However, temporary
erosion control BMP measures will be implemented to minimize short term
construction impacts in accordance with the City of Renton and Department of
Ecology standards.
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities
if known.
Dust and vehicle emissions may occur during construction. Vehicle emissions
from visiting customers will occur both during and after construction.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
None known.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if
any:
Site will be sprinkled with water during construction as necessary to control
dust.
3. WATER
a. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?
If yes, describe type and provide names. if appropriate, state what stream or
river it flows into.
No. Existing stormwater treatment system had seasonal water.
2) Will the project require any work over, in; or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and Indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
None.
- s - 06/09
Szl WashtnglonlRenton4grimes%Rainier Ave & 71h F-xpensionWReportslEnliltementlSEPA1#2516-05 SEPA Checkllsl 2009-12-15.doe
0 0
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
S) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? if so, note location on the
site plan.
The project is located in Zone X, which is outside the 100 -year flood plain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters?
If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
b. Ground Water:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No groundwater is anticipated to be withdrawn. Stormwater runoff will be
collected and conveyed by a system of curb, gutter, catch basins and
underground pipe to biofiltration swales or organic cartridge systems for
water quality treatment. System discharges to City of Renton storm system.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve.
None.
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe.
The source of runoff from the site is rainfall. On-site stormwater runoff from
the roof and paved surfaces will be collected and conveyed by a system of
curb, gutter, catch basins and underground detention/conveyance pipes to
biofiltration swales or organic cartridge systems for water quality treatment
and subsequently into the City of Renton storm system.
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
No.
- 6 - 06/09
S:1WashinglonlRentonlgrimeslRatnier Ave & 71h ExpansionWReporlsTrLVtlemenLL$EPA1#2516.05 SEPA Checklist 2009-12-15.doc
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
The source of runoff from the site is rainfall. On-site stormwater runoff from
the roof and paved surfaces will be collected and conveyed by a system of
curb, gutter, catch basins and underground detention/conveyance pipes to
biofiltration swales or organic cartridge systems for water quality treatment
and subsequently into the City of Renton storm system.
L19�7T11 V
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs
---Xgrass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Existing landscape islands may be relocated or added in order to meet the City
and Client landscaping spacing requirements.
C. list threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known at this time.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Proposed development will be landscaped in accordance with the City of
Renton requirements.
S. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other songbirds
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other None known.
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other None known.—
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain
None known.
- 7 - 06109
S:kWashinptonlRentontOmeslRainier Ave & 7th Expansionl4ReponslEnOdemeni SEPAW2516-05 SEPA Checktisi 2009-I2-15.tloc
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Landscaped areas will be enhanced.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used
for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Currently the store utilizes electric power and natural gas for site illumination,
interior building lighting, air conditioning, space heating and water heating.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
No impact anticipated.
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
This project will utilize the most energy-efficient mechanical systems practical
and will comply with Washington State Non -Residential Energy Code.
7, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur
as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
No. This project will meet all applicable health and safety standards.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Project will utilize typical emergency services (Fire, Police, Ambulance).
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
N/A
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Traffic noise from the adjacent roadways and operational noise from typical
commercial/industrial activities in the area.
S:1Washington4RenlonlgnmesRainier Ave & 7th EzpensionWReporkslEnGtlemen(kSEPA1#2516-05 SEPA CWklisl 2009-12-15.doc
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Short term construction noise will be created during construction. Long term
noise from customer vehicles, mechanical equipment, and freight unloading at
variable hours.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Project will utilize mechanical equipment to meet applicable City and State
noise standards.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The project site currently consists of the existing Walmart store and various
other commercial/retail buildings. Adjacent uses include Commercial to the
north, east, and south and Industrial/Commercial to the west.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No.
C. Describe any structures on the site.
Existing 134,352 square foot Walmart store, two restaurants, fuel station with
convenience store, bank, strip mail, and auto dealership. Adjacent uses include
commercial, office, and retail.
d. Will any structures be demolished? if so, what?
Yes, the existing Walmart store will have demolition activities for the
expansion area and adjacent uses may be altered/demolished as part of the
proposal.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The current zoning is CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Industrial Medium).
f, What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
The current comprehensive plan designation is CC (Commercial Corridor) and
EAV (Employment Area Valley).
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site?
N/A
W*11
S.1WashinglonlRenlonlgrimes%Rainier Ave & 71h ExpansionWRepomkrzmilllementiSEPAW251"5 SEPA Checklist 2609-12-16.doc
06109
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?
if so, specify.
No.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
It is estimated that approximately 85 new and 300 existing full/part-time
employees will be working in the building.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Approximately 30-40 employees.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
There are no planned measures to avoid or reduce possible displacement
impacts to the existing retail/restaurants. However, approximately 85
additional Walmart jobs will be created as a result of the proposed project.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
Development will be consistent with zoning requirements.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
None.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
None.
C, Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
N/A
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed.
The building will be approximately 35 feet with signage approximately 60 feet
as it currently exists.
_10- M09
S.1WashingtonlRentonVrirrreslRainier Ave & 7th ExpansionAReportslEnUilementLSEPAI#2516-05 SEPA Checklist 200-12.15,doc
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
The building will be expanded to the north utilizing an existing gravel pad. The
appearance of the existing building will be enhanced. The development will
include new landscaping and amenities not present in the site's existing
condition.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
The project has been designed to include enhancements to the building
architecture, site amenities, and new parking lot landscaping.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
Parking lot lighting will remain similar to the existing conditions. Parking lot
lighting will occur primarily at night time. Vehicle lights will occur during
evening hours.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
Project lighting will be designed to reduce glare while creating a safe level of
lighting.
C, What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Off-site light and glare from roadways and surrounding commercial buildings
will not affect this project.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
A Lighting Photometric Plan will be developed that minimizes the project -
generated light encroachment on adjacent properties. Project lighting will be
designed to provide a safe level of lighting in parking lot and around the
building.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
Unknown.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
No.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
- 11 . 06109
S:1WashingtonLRentonlgrimes\Rainier Ave & 7th ExpansionWReports%Enlitlemen[%SEPAW2516-05 SEPA Checklist 209-12-15.doc
Project will enhance site amenities and walk -ways.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally
describe.
None known.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
None known.
C, Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
N/A
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Access to the site is provided by SW Seventh Street (three full accesses) to the
north, Hardie Ave SW (full access) to the east, Rainier Avenue (right-in/right-
out access) to the east and SW Grady Way (full access) to the south. All
entrances will be shown and identified on the Site Plan.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
The site is served by multiple King County Metra Transit routes.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
It is estimated, at this time, that the project will have approximately 775
parking stalls. This is an increase from the existing condition, so no stalls are
being eliminated.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? if so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private?
None anticipated at this time. The permitting process could identify public
improvements.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
-12- 06/09
S:lWashingtonlRentonlgrimesCainier Ave & 7th Expansionl4ReportstEnbUementlSEPAW2516-05 SEPA Ghecklisl2009-12-15AOc
9 0
How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
The store expansion, with grocery, will generate an additional 608 Daily trips
(53 PM Peak Hour trips) per the ITE 8th Edition.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
No measures are planned at this time; however, the permitting process could
identify improvements to the public roadway system.
is. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example:
fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe.
No.
b, Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
N/A
16. UTILITIES
Circle utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, natural gas, water.
refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other,
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
The expansion will require an additional sanitary side sewer line to the store.
All other existing utilities are proposed to remain and/or be relocated to
accommodate the building expansion.
C. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct,
and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of
noxi -significance that it might issue in r ante upon this checklist should there be any
willful misrepresentatio e u ack ful( discWu on my part.
Proponent Signature'
Name Printed: L 67a-{! 65!f ,4�. _
Date: 716
-13- 06/08
S:1WashinglonlRenlonlg6meslRainierAve & 71h I xpansiorYVReporislEntUementtiSEPAW251&05 SEPA Checklist 2009-12-15.tloc
PLANNING DIVISION
DESIGN DISTRICT "D" CHECKLIST
City of Renton Planning Division C+tY Of Renton
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Panning Division
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: FEB - S ?QiQ
Ensure compliance with design review regulations located in the Renton Municipal Coi�ECEQ V ED
order to: �3
a. Maintain and protect property values;
b. Enhance the general appearance of the City;
c. Encourage creativity in building and site design;
d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and
e. Consider the individual merits of proposals.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS:
This design district checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
The City will use this checklist to determine whether the your proposal complies with the Urban
Design Regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-100). Answer the questions briefly,
with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
There are two categories that have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be
met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Planning Director in
determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines.
If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do
not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary
delays later.
A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the
Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that
businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity
throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center
Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future
development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe,
convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service
to businesses.
Page 1 of 35
Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to
public arterials.
The site is situated between public arterials on the northern, eastern and southern
property lines and contains seven (7) access points.
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway
system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design
treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial
Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration
of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes,
on -street parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) Internal or local roads (public or private).
The site contains private internal roads closest to the store which connect to public
arterials on the north, east, and south sides of the site.
2. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is
facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to
other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within
the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land
uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street.
Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
The building orientation will remain the same, with the entrance facing the east towards
the parking lot. There are clear connections between the pedestrian walkway and the
store entrance.
Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but
instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard.
Page 2 of 35
The existing store is oriented toward a drive aisle and will maintain this orientation in
the proposed conditions.
Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above
street level for residents' privacy.
Not Applicable.
3. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that
building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character
of the district.
Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade
facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the
public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements.
The primary entrance is visible from the street and includes a walkway to the public
sidewalk on Rainier Avenue South. The walkway will contain human -scale elements
such as decorative pedestrian lighting. The orientation of the entrance will remain the
same. A second walkway is proposed north of the store, connecting to the public
sidewalk on SW Seventh Street.
Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous
network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a
directed view to building entries.
There are buildings on adjacent sites, but not other buildings are proposed on the
project site. There are proposed pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks on both
Rainier Avenue South and SW Seventh Street.
Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an
open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
Not Applicable.
Page 3 of 35
Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather
protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access.
There is no secondary access to the building for customers or the general public.
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property
edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
Pedestrian access will be provided from the store to the public sidewalk on Rainier
Avenue South as well as the public sidewalk on SW Seventh Street. The Metro Transit
stop is located on SW Seventh Street. The project site does not abut any street
intersections.
Guideline Standard: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide
transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch,
landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature.
Not Applicable.
Guideline Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be
oriented to a street; otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises, artwork, murals,
landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented
facade.
The front entry is oriented towards the parking lot and street. Due to the existing layout
of the building, other elevations are not oriented towards streets. There are
buildings/businesses in between the right and left elevations and the rear elevation is
not street facing
Guideline Standard: Entries from the street should be clearly marked with canopies,
architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping. Entries from parking lots
should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings within District W.
Entries from the street are delineated with perimeter landscaping.
Page 4 of 35
0 0
4. Transition to Surrounding Development:
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-
established, existing neighborhoods are preserved.
Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a
compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms
of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be
considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses:
a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing
Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight
reaches adjacent yards;
b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels;
c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller
increments; or
d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and
transition with existing development.
The proposed building design includes varying roof heights, material, and roof shapes along
the front fagade in order to break up the larger architectural elements into smaller
increments.
5. Service Element Location and Design:
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles,
loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas,
and screening them from view in high visibility areas.
Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the
impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be
concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for
tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e).
All service elements are located behind the store or north of the expansion area, away
from the pedestrian environment.
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed,
consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095,
Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations.
Page 5 of 35
Recycling will be located in the 90'x12' bale and pallet area north of the expansion area.
The recycling area required is 752 sf and the project proposes 1,080 sf. Refuse is located
in the compactor next to the loading dock. Because the size of the compactor does not
meet the minimum refuse area of 1,503 sf, a modification will be required.
Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling
collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened
around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors (see illustration,
RMC 4-3-100E7f).
All garbage and recycling areas will be enclosed on all sides. details will be provided on
architect's plans in future submittals.
Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.
No chain link, plastic, or wire fencing will be used to enclose service areas.
Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -
oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3
sides of such facility.
The recycling area (bale and pallet) is located north of the store near the proposed
bioswale. The bale and pallet area is not adjacent to a street or pedestrian oriented
space; however, the 90'x12' enclosed space is surrounded by at least 3' of landscaping
on three sides.
Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or
wood, or some combination of the three.
The service enclosure fence will be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or
some combination of the three.
6. Gateways:
Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special
design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they
Page 6 of 35
are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and
scale.
Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with
visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7g).
The proposed building frontage will have distinctive use of materials and canopies as
visually prominent features.
Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both
pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7h).
The proposed expansion will contain elements that are oriented toward and scaled for
both cars and pedestrians. These elements include plaza areas, decorative pedestrian
lighting, canopies, and landscaping.
Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more of the
following:
a. Public art;
b. Monuments;
c. Special landscape treatment;
d. Open space/plaza;
e. Identifying building form;
f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards;
g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo);
h. Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs
are not allowed).
The property will incorporate visual prominence with landscape treatments, open
space/plaza, special paving (concrete crosswalks), architectural features, and
pedestrian scale lighting.
B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village;
incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce
traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while
encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian
environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along
sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access
streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
Page 7 of 35
f
1. Location of Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots
primarily in back of buildings.
Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front
property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot.
The existing building is oriented in such a way that the parking lot is located between
the building and the front property line. This layout will remain the same in the
proposed conditions.
Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended.
The project site will contain only the Walmart store; however, there are other uses
surrounding this property. Each building has sufficient parking for its intended use.
2. Design of Surface Parking:
Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the
impact of parking lots wherever possible.
Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties
(see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.175b).
The majority of lighting on-site will be existing to remain. Any new proposed lighting
will not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties.
Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual
impact (see RMC 4-4-080177, Landscape Requirements).
The surface parking lot will be landscaped in conformance with the landscaping
requirements in RMC 4-4-090. Additional perimeter landscaping has been added on the
street frontages.
Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected
by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts.
In new parking areas, landscape islands are placed every six stalls in order to break up
the parking areas. However, in existing parking areas, the emphasis was on retaining the
Page 8 of 35
existing mature trees on-site. Spacing of landscape islands in these areas exceed six
stalls, but all islands have been widened.
Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets
with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles.
The layout of the site will remain similar to existing conditions, where access to parking
is via internal drive aisles.
Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate
and minimize their impact on the streetscape.
No new driveways are proposed. However, additional perimeter landscaping has been
added on the SW Seventh Street and Rainier Avenue South frontages.
3. Structured Parking Garages:
Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured
parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate
parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they
are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment.
Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets:
(a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along
street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration,
subsection IMC 4-3-100.F5c).
(b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade.
Not applicable.
Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Non -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets:
(a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a
pedestrian -oriented facade shall be set back at least 5 feet from the sidewalk and
feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and
deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet
adjacent to high visibility streets.
Not applicable.
Page 9 of 35
(b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully
demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of
these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include
landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the
architectural design of the building:
(1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars);
(2) Decorative artwork;
(3) Display windows;
(4) Brick, tile, or stone;
(5) Pre -cast decorative panels;
(6) Vine -covered trellis;
(7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or
(S) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard.
Not applicable.
(c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to
avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures
shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements
and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5d).
Not applicable.
Minimum Standard: Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial
uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75 percent of the frontage width (see
illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5c).
Not applicable.
Minimum Standard: The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade.
Not applicable.
Minimum Standard: Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a
human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use
parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other
architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5d).
Page 10 of 35
9
Not applicable.
Is
Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not
subordinate, the pedestrian entry. if possible, locate the parking entry away from the
primary street, to either the side or rear of the building.
Not applicable.
Guideline: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape.
Not applicable.
Guideline: The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should
minimize the apparent width of garage entries.
Not applicable.
Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any
combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping.
Not applicable.
Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent
buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages.
Not applicable.
Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street
edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks.
Not applicable.
Page 11 of 35
0
4. Vehicular Access:
0
Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or
eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated
pedestrian -oriented streets.
Guideline: Parking lots and garages should be accessed from alleys or side streets.
No new access points are proposed as a part of this project. Therefore, access to parking
lots will remain from City streets.
Guideline: Driveways should be located to be visible from the right-of-way, but not
impede pedestrian circulation on-site or to adjoining properties. Where possible, minimize
the number of driveways and curb cuts.
Driveways are visible from the public right-of-way and do not impede on pedestrian
circulation to adjoining properties. No new driveways are proposed; however, a new
pedestrian connection to SW Seventh Street is proposed.
C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center
Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to
building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable,
and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through
parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to
reduce other vehicular traffic.
1. Pathways through Parking Lots:
Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and
parking lots.
Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall
be provided throughout parking areas.
The existing pedestrian pathway to Rainier Avenue South will be widened and enhanced
with pedestrian scale decorative lighting. In addition, a pedestrian access to SW Seventh
Street will be added as a part of the expansion.
Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided
perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart
(see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a).
Page 12 of 35
Two pedestrian pathways are proposed, including one new connection to SW Seventh
Street and a widened pathway to Rainier Avenue South. The new connection to SW
Seventh Street will provide access to the Metro transit stop. In order to maintain the
existing parking layout and a reasonable parking ratio, additional pedestrian
connections are not feasible.
2. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience
and enhance the pedestrian environment.
Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation
system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street
sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4b).
The development contains pedestrian circulation that connects the store, open space,
and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk systems on Rainier Avenue South
and SW Seventh Street.
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised
above the level of vehicular travel.
Sidewalks that are located between the building and streets are raised six inches above
the level of vehicular travel.
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be
differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration,
subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c).
Pedestrian crosswalks that are within parking lots will be of a different material than
the parking lot. Crosswalks will be concrete; however, they will still be striped per
MUTCD standards.
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of
sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or
more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12
feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking
surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d).
Page 13 of 35
0
1-1
Crosswalks along the facade of the building vary from 36 feet to 100 feet in width.
(b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to
major building entries shall be allowed.
Tree coverage will not block visibility or accessibility to the building entry.
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to
accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10 - 12 foot pathway, for example,
can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one
another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast,
whereas a smaller 5 — b foot pathway will accommodate two individuals.
Crosswalks (other than those in front of the building) are eight feet wide, and proposed
sidewalks are five feet wide. The pedestrian connection in front of the store has two
feet of vehicle overhang on either side, for a total width of nine feet.
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping
shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries.
Pathways will have clear line of sight and landscaping will not obstruct visibility of the
walkway or building entry.
Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface
unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development.
Pedestrian walkways will be concrete sidewalk. Crosswalks will be concrete with
striping per MUTCD standards.
Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such
as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment.
The primary pedestrian connection to Rainier Avenue South will be delineated with 12'-
14' decorative pedestrian lighting.
Page 14 of 35
0
11
Guideline: Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can
be established.
Not Applicable.
Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed
when appropriate to the situation.
Decorative fences/enclosures will be used to enclose the bale and pallet (recycling)
area.
3. Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are
inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for
a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of
awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum
of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a
maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above
ground level.
Overhead weather protection, in the form of canopies, is proposed at both building
entrances.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable,
vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be
reasonably maintained over an extended period of time.
The design includes a pedestrian canopy with benches and trash cans. The benches and
trash cans are weather resistant and don't retain water.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian
access to public spaces or building entrances.
The proposed benches and pedestrian amenities are layed out in such a way that they
will not block pedestrian access to public spaces or the building entrances.
Page 15 of 35
0
L�
Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street
furniture should be provided.
The proposed plaza area includes benches, trash receptacles and bicycle racks. The
transit stop is located on SW Seventh Street.
Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public
art should be provided.
Outdoor seating is provided in the plaza area, as well as an iconic tree in a raised
planter.
Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade -mounted
planting boxes or trellises or ground -related or hanging containers are encouraged,
particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along
pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4f).
The design includes a pedestrian canopy with benches and trash cans. The benches and
trash cans are weather resistant and don't retain water. There will be a raised planter
box area with an iconic tree planted with bench seating around it. This iconic tree
planter box will be located between the Home & Living and the Market & Pharmacy
entrances.
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of
pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the
community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers,
and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and
provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to
encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide
visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical
areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by
the community.
Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070,
Landscaping).
Page 16 of 35
0 0
All proposed pervious areas will be landscaped. See Landscape Plan.
Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge
and building, as determined by the City of Renton.
Street trees are proposed in the perimeter landscaping along Rainier Avenue/Hardie
Avenue and along SW Seventh Street.
Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be
installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as
determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a).
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent
and program of the building, the site, and use.
The proposed landscaping is consistent with the design intent of the building, site, and
use.
Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed
landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the
architecture or concept of the development.
The landscape plan shows the proposed plant materials and reinforces the concept of
the development.
Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to
reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-084F7, Landscape Requirements).
Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see
illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b).
Surface parking areas are screened from the streets by increasing the perimeter
landscaping along the abutting street frontages. Perimeter landscaping on Rainier
Avenue South and SW Seventh Street are approximately 55' and 2U' wide, respectively.
Page 17 of 35
0 9
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of
street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35
feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as
measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively.
Trees along the frontage are spaced thirty feet apart and will reach a mature height of
at least 35 feet. The minimum height at planting will be eight feet.
Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped
area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between
three and four feet.
In perimeter landscaping areas, shrubs are proposed at a minimum rate of one per 20
square feet of landscaped area.
Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at
least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation.
The proposed ground cover will provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped
area within three years of installation.
Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to
occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure
required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation.
A minimum maintenance assurance device will be provided prior to occupancy to
ensure that the required landscape standards are met with three years.
Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as
follows:
(1) Required Amount:
Total Number of Spaces
Minimum Required Landscape Area*
15 to 50
15 square feet/parking space
51 to 99
25 square feet/parking space
100 or more
35 square feet/parking space
Page 18 of 35
0 0
* Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude
perimeter parking lot landscaping areas.
The proposed number of parking stalls is 745; therefore, the minimum amount of
interior landscaping is 26,075 sf. The proposed area of interior landscaping is
29,992 sf.
(2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot
landscape areas.
Trees, shrubs, and ground cover have been provided in the interior parking lot
landscaping areas.
(3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are
those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet . Minimum height or caliper at
planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top
of the root ball) respectively.
In new parking areas, there is one tree for every six parking spaces. However, in
the existing parking areas, emphasis was put on retaining the existing mature
trees onsite. In these areas there is not one tree per six stalls. However, a
significant amount of perimeter landscaping has been added on both abutting
frontages, both of which contain new shrubs and larger trees.
(4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall
be at least 16 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and
four feet.
The current landscape plan proposes shrubs at a minimum rate of approximately
one per 140 square feet of landscaped area. In order to retain the existing mature
trees onsite the number of interior landscape islands were reduced but widened.
(5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous.
Less than 50 percent of the proposed shrubs are deciduous.
Page 19 of 35
(6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three
years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete.
The proposed ground cover will provide 90 percent coverage within three years of
planting.
(7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
No parking stall is located more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials
are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Regular maintenance will be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy
and dead or dying plants are replaced.
Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all
landscape areas.
An underground, automatic irrigation system will be installed in all new landscape
areas. Existing landscape areas are already equipped with irrigation.
Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings.
The intent of the landscaping is to soften and integrate the bulk of the building.
Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of
unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views.
The proposed landscaping is intended to focus attention to preferred views.
Guideline: Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is encouraged.
Page 20 of 35
Low maintenance, drought -resistant plants are proposed where appropriate.
Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be
available.
The plant materials chosen do reflect the level of maintenance that will be available.
Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at
building entries and in publicly accessible spaces.
A large planter, containing the iconic tree, is proposed in the plaza area near the
building entrance.
Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting
feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably
maintained.
Containers for plantings will be made of weather -resistant materials that can be easily
maintained.
Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or
neighboring properties.
The proposed landscaping will screen the parking lot from public right -of way.
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space:
Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by
residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended
activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is
accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets
particularly at street corners.
Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or
more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area
equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide
usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or
recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open
Page 21 of 35
0 0
space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may
require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100
units.
(a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces;
(b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above
the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are
provided as an asset to the development;
(c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the
public street system;
(d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming
pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or
(e) Children's play spaces.
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required
landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward
the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or
common use areas.
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required
yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless
such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties)
courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to
create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration,
subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3c).
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall
not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement.
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other
required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as
Page 22 of 35
0 0
pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space
requirement.
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of
nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -
oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3d) according to the following
formula:
1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -
oriented space
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be
included:
(a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures
from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard;
(b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving;
(c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on
the ground; and
(d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60
square feet of plaza area or open space.
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space
(see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3e) and may be required by the Director:
(a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian -
oriented space.
(b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide
interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry.
(c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space.
Page 23 of 35
(d) Provide movable public seating.
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space:
(a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots;
(b) Adjacent chain link fences;
(c) Adjacent blank walls;
(d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and
(e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not
contribute to the pedestrian environment.
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -
oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum
requirements, the area may count as pedestrian -oriented space if the Director determines
such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space.
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: Commercial Arterial Zone Public Plazas.
At each corner of the intersections listed below, there shall be provision of a public plaza
of no less than 1,000 square feet with a minimum dimension of 20 feet on one side
abutting the sidewalk. The public plaza must be landscaped consistent with RMC 4-4-070,
including at minimum street trees, decorative paving, pedestrian -scaled lighting, and
seating. These public plazas are to be provided at all of the following intersections:
i. Benson Area: Benson Drive S./108th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 176th.
ii. Bronson Area: Intersections with Bronson Way North at:
(a) Factory Avenue N_ / Houser Way S.;
(b) Garden Avenue N.; and
(c) Park Avenue N. and N. First Street.
iii. Cascade Area: Intersection of 116th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 168th Street.
iv. Northeast Fourth Area: Intersections with N.E. Fourth at:
(a) Duvall Avenue N.E.;
(b) Monroe Avenue N.E.; and
(c) Union Avenue N.E.
Grady Area: Intersections with Grady Way at:
(a) Lind Avenue S.W.;
(b) Rainier Avenue S.;
Page 24 of 35
(c) Shattuck Avenue S.; and
(d) Talbot Road S.
vi. Puget Area: Intersection of S. Puget Drive and Benson Road S.
vii. Rainier Avenue Area: Intersections with Rainier Avenue S. at:
(a) Airport Way / Renton Avenue S.;
(b) S. Second Street;
(c) S. Third Street/ S.W. Sunset Boulevard;
(d) S. Fourth Street; and
(e) S. Seventh Street_
viii. North Renton Area: Intersections with Park Avenue N. at:
(a) N. Fourth Street; and
(b) N. Fifth Street.
ix. Northeast Sunset Area: Intersections with N.E. Sunset Boulevard at:
(a) Duvall Avenue N.E.; and
(b) Union Avenue N.E.
Not Applicable.
Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects
should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and
usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units.
Not Applicable.
Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding
features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or
architecture, and solar exposure.
Not Applicable.
Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space
should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas
like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas.
Not Applicable.
Page 25 of 35
9 0
E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a
human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest
climate_ To discourage franchise retail architecture.
1. Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appearto be at a human scale; and
ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at
intervals of no more than forty feet (40').
The building facade is modulated using a variety of materials/calors/roof heights and
shapes in an attempt to reduce the mass of the building.
Guideline: Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural
elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add
visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood.
The building fa4ade is modulated using a variety of materials/colors/roof heights and
shapes in an attempt to reduce the mass of the building.
Guideline: Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale
important to residential buildings.
Not Applicable.
Guideline: A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual
interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects.
The building facade is modulated using a variety of materials/colors/roof heights and
shapes in an attempt to reduce the mass of the building.
Guideline: Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet deep, 16 feet in height,
and eight feet in width.
Page 26 of 35
0 0
Guideline: Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade
elements, off -set planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered; provided, that the
intent of this Section is met.
The "street -facing publicly visible" front elevation is designed with a variety of
materials/colors/roof heights and shapes in an attempt to reduce the "mass" of the
building bringing the scale of the project to a more "pedestrian" level.
2. Ground -Level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale
character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or
distant public view have visual interest.
Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or
interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and
retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if:
(a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height,
has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door,
building modulation or other architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or
greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other
architectural detailing.
The front building facade is modulated using a variety of materials/colors/roof heights
and shapes in an attempt to reduce the mass of the building. Existing sides of the
building to remain will be treated with a contrasting paint scheme.
Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be
treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15d):
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen
ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall;
(b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special
detailing that meets the intent of this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
(e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Existing sides of the building to remain will be treated with a contrasting paint scheme.
Page 27 of 35
Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall.
The contrasting paint scheme on existing walls to remain will be proportional to the
wall.
Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or
other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor.
Decorative lighting fixtures and trellises are planned along the front facade.
Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least
75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true
elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent
windows and/or doors.
Clear glazing has been incorporated in as many areas possible on the front elevation.
The vestibules and cart storage areas are composed of a high percentage of clear
glazing. Much of the rest of the fa§ade are made up of offices/tenant spaces/rest rooms
that prohibit clear glazing.
Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following:
(a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building.
However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum
amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent.
Clear glass windows are proposed where possible.
(b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than
permanent displays.
Windows are not "display" windows. They're not meant for display of merchandise.
(c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing.
Page 28 of 35
0 0
Clear glazing is proposed.
(d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited.
Tinted glass is not proposed.
Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by
incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each
category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15e):
(a) Facade Features:
(1) Recess;
(2) Overhang;
(3) Canopy;
(4) Trellis;
(5) Portico;
(6) Porch;
(7) Clerestory.
(b) Doorway Features:
(1) Transom windows;
(2) Glass windows flanking door;
(3) Large entry doors;
(4) Ornamental lighting
(5) Lighted displays.
(c) Detail Features:
(1) Decorative entry paving;
(2) Ornamental building name and address;
(3) Planted containers;
(4) Street furniture (benches, etc.).
The primary building entrance will be made prominent using the following architectural
features:
(a) Facade Features:
Overhang;
Canopy;
(b) Doorway Features:
Transom windows;
Ornamental lighting
(c) Detail Features:
Street furniture (benches, etc.).
Page 29 of 35
Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures,
relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground -level detail.
Trellises above the windows at the cart storage areas are proposed.
Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building
walls are encouraged.
Raised planter box is proposed.
3. Building Roof Lines:
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an
urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create
varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f):
(a) Extended parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
The building will use the above elements, as well as a pitched roof.
Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the
equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
Visual screening of the roof mounted equipment is proposed.
Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the
building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment.
Proposed parapets will visually screen the roof top equipment.
Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of
exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from
higher elevations.
Page 30 of 35
0 0
If RTU equipment is visible from higher elevations, it will be painted to match the color
of the roof.
4. Building Materials:
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the
use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of
materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood.
Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or
open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and
color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive
texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades.
Building materials will have an attractive combination of color, material, and texture.
Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Building materials will employ variations in color, material, and texture.
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or
metal banding, patterns, or textural changes.
Areas of new construction include a variety of materials such as integrally colored split
face block, integrally colored Trespa panels, prefinished metal panels, eifs (above 4'from
finished floor) and painted block.
Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more
traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally
colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast -in-place
concrete.
Areas of new construction include a variety of materials such as integrally colored split
face block, integrally colored Trespa panels, prefinished metal panels, eifs (above 4'
from finished floor) and painted block.
Page 31 of 35
0 0
Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns,
coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted
surfaces, mosaics, or artwork.
Areas of new construction include a variety of materials such as integrally colored split
face block, integrally colored Trespa panels, prefinished metal panels, eifs (above 4'
from finished floor) and painted block.
Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks
and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials.
Areas of new construction include a variety of materials such as integrally colored split
face block, integrally colored Trespa panels, prefinished metal panels, eifs (above 4'
from finished floor) and painted block.
Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other
more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings
between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above.
Areas of new construction include a variety of materials such as integrally colored split
face block, integrally colored Trespa panels, prefinished metal panels, eifs (above 4'
from finished floor) and painted block.
F. SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional
assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project;
encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center
Village; and create color and interest.
Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the
building.
New Signage will be an integral part of the design approach to the building.
Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their
location.
Page 32 of 35
0 0
New logos and signs will be sized appropriately for their location.
Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-
100.J3a):
1. Pole signs;
ii. Roof signs;
iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated
cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are
permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit.
No prohibited signs are proposed.
Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated
with the overall building design.
Not Applicable.
Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of
primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support
structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs)
to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may
incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director.
If a monument sign is proposed at the SW Seventh Street Entrance, it will meet this
criteria.
Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
A monument sign may be proposed at the SW Seventh Street Entrance. Walmart is the
larger development on this site.
Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be
garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and
interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged.
Page 33 of 35
0 0
Not Applicable.
Guideline: Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type of
freestanding sign.
A monument sign may be proposed at the SW Seventh Street Entrance.
Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are
mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian -oriented streets.
Proposed building signage is limited to an internally LED lit brand sign and directional
vestibule signs clearly designating the type of goods and services provided at each
entrance.
G. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such
as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and
increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located
in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site.
Proposed lighting will match the existing 40' lights on-site.
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not
be allowed to directly project off-site.
Lighting will provide increased security, but will not directly project off-site. Wall pack
lights are proposed around the building for safety.
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and
aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building
facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces.
Decorative sconces illuminate the entrances. Llplighting is proposed at the pedestrian
canopy to illuminate the translucent canopy at night to provide a safer environment for
Page 34 of 35
customers waiting for pick up or drop off. Wall pack lights are proposed around the
building for safety. in addition, 12'-14' decorative pedestrian lights will be added to the
Rainier Avenue South connection.
Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art,
and significant landscape features such as specimen trees.
Uplighting is proposed at the pedestrian canopy to illuminate the translucent canopy at
night to provide a safer environment for customers waiting for pick up or drop off.
Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may
include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street
lighting, etc.
Decorative sconces illuminate the entrances. Uplighting is proposed at the pedestrian
canopy to illuminate the translucent canopy at night to provide a safer environment for
customers waiting for pick up or drop off. Wall pack lights are proposed around the
building for safety.
Page 35 of 35
Oif'Y of Rentor,
PkKTIAL 1'!4'nr�ir, Drvr,ian
APPLICATION FOR R , LEASE OF EASEMENT F -8
IN THE CITY OF RENTON «110
To the Honorable Mayor and Date Jilntr Ty 19 y „ 1010 __ �CE9VED
Members of the City Council I
City of Renton Cireulatc@By: PAfl,p,WD
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055 Address: N.
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Telephone: 2 a 6- 5 22 - 9 5-10
We, the undersigned property owners abutting a certain portion of public easement, as
acquired from ry;6 of' Pe im dated ()c+yber 31, l 944 , and recorded
under King County Ftecording Number , respectfully request the
release of said easement. That portion of the easement area to be released being more
particularly described on the attached "Exhibit A".
The undersigned each consent to such proposed easement release and warrants that the
granting thereof will not adversely affect his vested rights as an abutting owner.
signature signature
print name phone print name phone
address address
property identification number property identification number
------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions:
1. Attach complete legal description (i.e. metes and bounds, etc.)
2. a) Sign name. (Signatures of owners of 213 of lineal frontage must sign.
Spouses do not need to sign. Owners in common must sign. Contract sellers
must sign.)
b) Print name and phone number.
C) List Property address and King County tax parcel identification number.
3. Attach a map to the petition designating the vacation boundaries.
4. Submit $ 2501"iling fee with application_
SUBMIT PETITION TO THE CITY CLERK, SEVENTH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL.
If and when the City Council approves the vacation at a public hearing, payment of a post
hearing processing fee of %.' $V Op- will be required.
11.Varmsksmn rel -DOT 1199
• . 9
signature
print name phone
signature
print name
address address
property identification number property identification number
phone
signature signature
print name phone print name phone
address address
property identification number property identification number
signature signature
print name phone print name phone
address address
property identification number property identification number
MkformAesm ret.QOTt199
0 0
EXHIBIT "Ari
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP
23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THAT
STRIP OF LAND AS PROVIDED FOR AND DESCRIBED IN THAT PERPETUAL
EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER RECORDED UNDER NO. 61116011
RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A POINT SOUTH 01023'12" WEST 590 FEET FROM THE
NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19;
SAID POINT BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 19;
THENCE NORTH 89003138" WEST 30.00 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF
HARDIE AVENUE SOUTHWEST;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89003'38" WEST 419.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 001134122" WEST 319.10 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 73036'22" WEST 256.90 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 0003542" EAST 10.46 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 73036'22" WEST 10.46 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00035'42" EAST 217.50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89024118" EAST 20.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00035'42" WEST 21..39 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 73036'22" WEST 10.4:6 FEET THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE CONTAINS 41289 SQUARE FEET (0.0985
ACRE), MORE OR LESS.
SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
BONNELL FAMILY, LLC
WALMART RENTON
JAMES M. HARPER, P.L.S.
BRH JOB NO. 2.009108.01
JANUARY 22, 2010
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE, WA 98102
(206) 323-4144
LLJ
00
cc
�-•— ,�'b 8Z t
�n
no
r'
W zLooo
LWT
vo�o �
4 � I
7D ck� 1'
LLJ
Cl -
1 •,1 i
w \ 1 1
CD
r
wQ F--o�
J C) . N z:- r �� CV Q 1 1
Lq f5
Ln
LO C�r
4 � o LJ
d
-cc CO � 1 1
LJ 1 1
Z Z Q OD
H to F u-)
(.!) J N WC:)
L'J mc0 d U L!7
c0 O
N
LTJ
1�1S1L\1111111�S1�1U1L»1111tiUA11\1`U11U11�1111�1111'! !'fir
DO
LS'L lS �uL�,b L ION a
LION
m
1
�
E
m
�
r4
'C
cli
W
m
�I
LU
WLL
z
a0
J
a
WJ
z
1
LL
o
Wm
J
CC0 LLL
JJ
W
Cc z
O
Jm
F
a
CL
WF
LION
Printed: 02-08-2010
CITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Land Use Actions
RECEIPT
Permit#: LUA10-009
Payment Made: 02/08/2010 04:25 PM
Total Payment: 3,000.00
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
9
City of Renton
.... ........ Planning Division
FEB - $ iu)d
RECENED
Receipt Number: 81000639
Payee: PACLAND-SEATTLE, PC
Trans
Account Code
Description
Amount
------
5010
-------------------
000.345.81.00.0007
------------------------------
Environmental Review
----------------
1,000.00
5020
000.345.81.00.0017
Site Plan Approval
21000.00
Payments made for this receipt
Trans
-----------
Method Description
Amount
Payment
-------- ---------------------------
Check 1131
---------------
3,000.00
Account
Balances
Trans
Account Code
Description
Balance Due
------
3021
------------------
303.000.00.345.85
--------------------------------
Park Mitigation Fee
---------------
.00
5006
000.345.81.00.0002
Annexation Fees
.00
5007
000.345.81.00.0003
Appeals/Waivers
.00
5008
000.345.61.00.0004
Binding Site/Short Plat
.00
5009
000.345.81.00.0006
Conditional Use Fees
.00
5010
000.345.81.00.0007
Environmental Review
.00
5011
000.345.81.00.0008
Prelim/Tentative Plat
.00
5012
000.345.81.00.0009
Final Plat
.00
5013
000.345.81.00.0010
PUD
.00
5014
000-345.81.00.0011
Grading & Filling Fees
.00
5015
000.345.81.00.0012
Lot Line Adjustment
.00
5016
000.345.81.00.0013
Mobile Home Parks
.00
5017
000.345.81.00.0014
Rezone
.00
5018
000.345.81.00.0015
Routine Vegetation Mgmt
.00
5019
000.345.81.D0.0016
Shoreline Subst Dev
.00
5020
000.345.81.00.0017
Site Plan Approval
.00
5021
000.345.81.00.0018
Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence
.00
5022
000.345.81.00.0019
Variance Fees
.00
5024
000.345.81..00.0024
Conditional Approval Fee
.00
5036
000.345.81.00.0005
Comprehensive Plan Amend
.00
5909
000.341.60.00.0024
Booklets/EIS/Copies
.00
5941
000.341.50.00.0000
Maps {Taxable)
.00
5954
650.237.00.00.0000
DO NOT USE - USE 3954
.00
5955
000.05.519.90.42.1
Postage
.00
5998
000.231.70.00.0000
Tax
.00
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00